mandy Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I have an opinion which will probably be unpopular...but here goes The NHS is not a bottomless pit, and working in cancer services I see many people who have great need of medical treatment in a life-threatening situation. There are many other life threatening illnesses which in my opinion should always take priority over things like IVF. I have a child so don't know what it is like to desperately want a child and be unable to concieve, but realise how distressing it is for infertile couples, as I have friends in that situation. Now the unpopular bit......Bringing up a child is an expensive business from start to finish. If a couple are sooo desperate to have IVF, is it unreasonable for them to save up the necessary funds for IVF? I know it is expensive, but how does it compare to the costs incurred in a childs first years of life? I suspect that child rearing is equally as expensive. Providing that the couple are not within a year or so of the age limit for IVF, surely if they can afford to bring up a child they can afford to save for the IVF? Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) You could look at this another way. If the NHS dealt with the underlying issues of some of these cases they would never get as far as needing IVF. I've had problems since the age of 15 that GP's swept under the carpet. I've had an illness for decades that the NHS refused to admit to. They must have spent thousands on me over the years instead of looking into the problem properly. If they had I wouldn't have had any discussions about IVF, been refused and could possibly have one or more children annoying me at the moment. It was only when I was becoming older that they were suddenly interested because my time was running out. It's like shutting the barn door after the horse is bolted and is costing this country a blooming fortune. To answer Mandy - it could take years for the average couple to save up the money to pay for IVF. Time is one thing that a lot of couples haven't got. Edited January 15, 2008 by Jacobean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooandboo Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Perhaps to be fair, everyone who has a child should pay for their treatment - after all none of us who has had them really need them do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Yes maybe we should say right stop everyone no more children please. That would save a lot of money. This is meant tongue in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Yes - to suitable parents (for me this would not include drug addicts or drug substitutes, same sex couples - again see a previous thread, nor hetrosexual couples in very new / recent relationships. I don't believe that the costs in the first year argument Mandy cites hold water - you are effectively asking those potential parents to find double themoney - the cost of IVF plus the childs care Lack of sufficient savings to pay for it themselves should not be a bar to decent loving parents having a child. This country fritters far more on far less deserving causes than that in my opinion. Whilst I'm not for a moment suggesting Cancer patients don't deserve treatment regardless of how it was caused lets remember that some of them chose to smoke and take that risk, few choose to be infertile (and even those who choose to have a vasectomy can also choose to try & have it reversed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meandmy4? Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) IVF should definitly be giving on the NHS, why should you only deserve the chance to have a baby if your rich?? Edited January 15, 2008 by meandmy4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elricc Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I am not setting out to offend anyone and I am sorry if I do. In todays world £2-£3k is not a lot of money, it buys a second hand car, it pays about a years vet bills, it pays for a reasonable holiday. If I wanted a child who would be an integral part of my life as long as I was alive I would pay 10 times that to get it. As for why should the rich, like a lot of things they can afford it, but its not a lot of money in todays world. Why should I pay for it from my taxes, or boob jobs or any of the other what I see as non vital medical treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandy Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Elricc...thats exactly what i meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I'm not offended, I don't need IVF & it's a purely hypothetical debate to me but for those that do need it can you really say that a child's life is comparable to a "boob job" in your eyes? Perhaps they could adopt, but perhaps they want a child of their own. You say it's not a lot of money & from the fact you mention being happy to pay 10 x that, perhaps it's not to you but what about those people who haven't got twenty or thirty grand in the bank (or even the 5or 6k you suggest is needed for IVF & first years care), those who work hard, also pay their taxes to fund the NHS etc, could be very loving parents but live on the minimum wage - don't they deserve a chance of giving a child a loving family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meandmy4? Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 But everyone pays taxes, well most working people. And sometimes 2-3 k is a lot to find in 1 lump some and I think it is quite a large sum of money in this day and age with the cost of living as it is. And from what I know of IVF it often takes quite a few times. But everyone pays taxes, well most working people. And sometimes 2-3 k is a lot to find in 1 lump some and I think it is quite a large sum of money in this day and age with the cost of living as it is. And from what I know of IVF it often takes quite a few times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Okay, I'll be well in the race for having the most unpopular view, but in my opinion the earth is overpopulated enough as it is. Our species is eating the earth, using up its resources at an alarming rate. Not only are there now medical advancements like IVF to 'create' a child, medical science is also doing its best to ensure that we will not die till we are at least 100. I just don't think that the earth will be able to survive the impact our species is making for much longer: more cars, more planes, more buildings, more industries etc etc etc. Other species are rapidly becoming extinct because of our "need" to expand, develop, advance. I just think we could do with less newborns at the moment than more. And if, like Ian says, people "want to give a child a loving home", then by all means adopt! What is it that you really want: giving a child a loving home or fulfill your need to pro-create? Apologies again but I don't see much difference between a child in care or an orphanage or a dog in a shelter. Both of them are there through no fault of their own and both of them will miss out on a loving home because the loving home wants to have a "new" one and not one that's "second-hand". I've tried to formulate this as tactfully as I can, but it is something that I feel really strongly about. I do apologise if anyone feels offended, but I don't apologise for feeling this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooandboo Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 but its not a lot of money in todays world. It's a huge amount to me. I have one child, because I was able to conceive naturally (I don't know how I would have reacted if I couldn't) and because one child is all I can afford if I want to feed that child well which I do. I wouldn't deny anyone the joy I've had over the last ten years. However, I'd happily deny treatment and resent my taxes going towards the cost of said treatment of the tw@t who knowingly drunk, climbed into his car (and any such tw@t, and there are plenty of them) and ended my mother's life at the age of 56 and in *perfect health* the autopsy said, probably because she never smoked or drank. He also ploughed into my father, leaving him in permanent pain which can't be treated, on the NHS or otherwise. I'd have been very happy for him to have been billed for his treatment but even more of my (and your) taxes went towards his time in jail - I'd have been very happy for him to have been billed for that too. As for overpopulation, I think it will be our downfall and the world will be a better place for it. IVF is a fractional contribution to that when there are people conceiving naturally and having families of ten or more children, all treated on the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSDFan Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I'd like to see all treatment readily available on the NHS but that isn't likely to happen. Until we reach some form of Utopia then I'm not sure IVF should be funded by the NHS. If it is funded then it should be done equally across the country, not by postcode lottery, and should be available to anyone who is deemed to be medically suitable. I see no real reason why people wanting IVF should not pay for it themselves. In the case of IVF then if people cannot afford it they are unlikely to be able to afford to raise children. We would frown upon people who wanted a dog but could not afford to buy it ( or pay the adoption fee ) and question whether they could afford to keep it if they could not pay the initial costs. In some ways I can see no difference. As a tax payer I would rather see what I contribute to the NHS spent on essential treatment. Like Billymalc I also feel the world is already overpopulated and that is a more pressing problem than infertility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I actually was about to go privately. It costs more than £3,000. For me time ran out. I had a dog that was about to cost me a lot of money. The money I needed for the IVF went on her instead. She cost me over £4,000. Money gone. Became very ill and was told I had to have a hysterectomy. My argument is there are other things the nhs are paying out for that could be done away with rather than IVF. I'm not offended by anyone's comments. We all have our own thoughts on the matter. A lot of people take for granted that they can have children and then find they can't. A lot of others think that's ok when they can't because they can adopt. It ain't that simple. There's a process you have to go through to adopt. Not everyone is accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegk68 Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) A lot of people take for granted that they can have children and then find they can't. A lot of others think that's ok when they can't because they can adopt. It ain't that simple. There's a process you have to go through to adopt. Not everyone is accepted. Yes I do so love this answer to everything IVF related...just go and adopt, simple, and problem solved Over population, yes that's something that I haven't personally dug my head out of the sand to yet but do at least acknowledge that it is a problem. However the number of births from IVF is such a tiny, tiny, miniscule drop in the ocean I can't really put the two and two together and go eureka you know. As a minor, mini part of a bigger picture, then maybe but that surely deserves a thread all on it's own.... Affording IVF, well as I said I would do so out of my funds. I don't know what the answer is for those who can't afford to. Although I do know in life it's easier to find money on a daily basis to survive, and of course bring up children, than to come up with a lump sum of thousands, just like that. And don't forget that for the majority, by the time you realise you're not getting anywhere, well that clock is ticking louder and louder, which should really get you panicing about how you're going to quickly russle up a few thousand before it's too late... Oh and please lay off the dog/child adoption comparisons, now matter how much my dogs mean to me (and they mean the world) frankly I find it insulting. Edited January 15, 2008 by tegk68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts