hiringandfiring has made some very valid points ...
Personally, I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS period. If you cannot have children, you should accept that - harsh maybe, but then life can be harsh. In my opinion it is natures way of keeping down the population. And what about all the poor children who have been brought into the world who are orphans? If you want children that badly, but can't have your own then adopt.
And its as clear cut as that is it? In your little world maybe..
Absolutely right. As I said, this is NOT a moral crusade against obesity, it's just that IVF doesn't work well in obese women. Resources are scarce, why waste them?
Maybe obese people should just crawl away into a corner and die as so many people appear to be so offended by them? After all they are not really human beings, with real human emotions are they?
I’m not sure of the rules but I think one attempt at least should be allowed on the NHS. There are plenty of other things given that are not life threatening and also cost a hell of a lot of money that are given on the NHS- ie. Cosmetic surgery (not just out of physical pain reasons) transsexual operations… not being able to have children can cause depression, anxiety and even make women feel suicidal- which of course is then life threatening and depression then costs the NHS further money in treatment.
I think the people casting scorn on these women and say no way should NHS pay have clearly luckily – never yearned for child and not been able to have one or simply don’t want kids. I want kids more than anything in my future- I’m not trying yet and wont be for a few years, but can well imagine feeling like it was the end of my world if I couldn’t have them.
I think many who say its privilege could well be men- a woman in puberty and body development is well aware her body is preparing for children from a very young age- so its something that is always with you- it seems it should be a natural thing when you spend your whole life preparing for it so its much more than simply a privilege- it should be something all women can do if they want.
There are so many different ways of looking at it and the boundaries between a lot of treatments of the NHS are very blurred.
Maybe obese people should just crawl away into a corner and die as so many people appear to be so offended by them? After all they are not really human beings, with real human emotions are they?
Look, what part of "this is not a moral argument" are you having a problem with? I'm sorry if you disagree, but if it's a choice between funding a heart operation that WILL succeed and will give someone the chance of a new life, or paying for an IVF procedure that statistically has very little chance of succeeding, the choice is pretty obvious.
I’m not sure of the rules but I think one attempt at least should be allowed on the NHS. There are plenty of other things given that are not life threatening and also cost a hell of a lot of money that are given on the NHS- ie. Cosmetic surgery (not just out of physical pain reasons) transsexual operations… not being able to have children can cause depression, anxiety and even make women feel suicidal- which of course is then life threatening and depression then costs the NHS further money in treatment.
I think the people casting scorn on these women and say no way should NHS pay have clearly luckily – never yearned for child and not been able to have one or simply don’t want kids. I want kids more than anything in my future- I’m not trying yet and wont be for a few years, but can well imagine feeling like it was the end of my world if I couldn’t have them.
I think many who say its privilege could well be men- a woman in puberty and body development is well aware her body is preparing for children from a very young age- so its something that is always with you- it seems it should be a natural thing when you spend your whole life preparing for it so its much more than simply a privilege- it should be something all women can do if they want.
There are so many different ways of looking at it and the boundaries between a lot of treatments of the NHS are very blurred.
Very well said. I hope you get your long awaited child Holly, when you decide the time is right.
It is true that the NHS pay for a lot of "non-life threatening" operations. I have a friend who got a boob job on the NHS because her small breasts were psychologically damaging her. I didn't have a problem with my taxes paying for this, as we ALL take money out of the system for one reason and another. No one has the right to decide what's important to someone else.
Look, what part of "this is not a moral argument" are you having a problem with? I'm sorry if you disagree, but if it's a choice between funding a heart operation that WILL succeed and will give someone the chance of a new life, or paying for an IVF procedure that statistically has very little chance of succeeding, the choice is pretty obvious.
I watched a TV programme the other night which showed just how much time and resources it takes to stop someone with annorexia from starving themselves to death. The biggest investment seemed to be in trying to keep sufferers alive - a cure being a distant hope.
Whilst I agree that resources need to be targetted and matched to likely treatment success therefore the mobidly obese and those with annorexia should be discounted - they are still entitled to NHS treatment to deal with their eating disorder and if sucessful should be entitled to IVF treatment surely. Thus not really cost saving in the long run.
Do all the older people we hear about having kids have their IVF privately, or do they get it on the NHS? Because it's just as dangerous and complicated to have kids when you're older as it is if you're overweight.
I think I wouldn't mind this so much if it was advice rather than a ban - because yeah, lose weight, stop smoking, generally get healthy and see if you can then conceive, before you even think about IVF. And I wouldn't mind so much if BMI was a reliable indicator, or if the classification of "obese" was what a normal person would call obese. But these days obese is about a size 16, which is ridiculous.
And while I sympathise with people saying that infertility can cause depression and anxiety, mental problems tend to be things you have a tendency towards in the first place, and I don't think that's an ideal qualification to get special help to have children, to be honest. The underlying problems aren't going to just miraculously go away and having children can cause all sort of new problems. And trying to bring up a child when you're prone to depression and anxiety isn't ideal for the parent OR the child. I'm not saying it can't be done successfully, but it's hard, and I don't think we should be going out of our way to put more people in that position.
[QUOTE=pickwick]Do all the older people we hear about having kids have their IVF privately, or do they get it on the NHS? Because it's just as dangerous and complicated to have kids when you're older as it is if you're overweight.
As I have been led to believe, the NHS will only accept a woman for IVF treatment up to her 40th birthday. In fact, I don't think they can accept a woman onto the waiting list within 6 months of her 40th birthday.
There are already very strict criteria for accepting a couple for NHS funded IVF treatment. For example, they must be married, neither have children from a previous relationship, have been trying naturally for at least 2 years (shorter if over 35 years of age, a year I think).
People are not accepted for NHS funded IVF willy-nilly. They have to fulfill an already strict criteria.
[QUOTE=pickwick]Do all the older people we hear about having kids have their IVF privately, or do they get it on the NHS? Because it's just as dangerous and complicated to have kids when you're older as it is if you're overweight.
As I have been led to believe, the NHS will only accept a woman for IVF treatment up to her 40th birthday. In fact, I don't think they can accept a woman onto the waiting list within 6 months of her 40th birthday.
There are already very strict criteria for accepting a couple for NHS funded IVF treatment. For example, they must be married, neither have children from a previous relationship, have been trying naturally for at least 2 years (shorter if over 35 years of age, a year I think).
People are not accepted for NHS funded IVF willy-nilly. They have to fulfill an already strict criteria.
So how do they "know" you've been trying for 2 years?
As I have been led to believe, the NHS will only accept a woman for IVF treatment up to her 40th birthday. In fact, I don't think they can accept a woman onto the waiting list within 6 months of her 40th birthday.
There are already very strict criteria for accepting a couple for NHS funded IVF treatment. For example, they must be married, neither have children from a previous relationship, have been trying naturally for at least 2 years (shorter if over 35 years of age, a year I think).
People are not accepted for NHS funded IVF willy-nilly. They have to fulfill an already strict criteria.
Hmmm, OK, I think those criteria are fair enough, except the married one but I can see they have to do something to try and ensure the couples will stay together.
I’m not sure of the rules but I think one attempt at least should be allowed on the NHS. There are plenty of other things given that are not life threatening and also cost a hell of a lot of money that are given on the NHS- ie. Cosmetic surgery (not just out of physical pain reasons) transsexual operations… not being able to have children can cause depression, anxiety and even make women feel suicidal- which of course is then life threatening and depression then costs the NHS further money in treatment.
I think the people casting scorn on these women and say no way should NHS pay have clearly luckily – never yearned for child and not been able to have one or simply don’t want kids. I want kids more than anything in my future- I’m not trying yet and wont be for a few years, but can well imagine feeling like it was the end of my world if I couldn’t have them.
I think many who say its privilege could well be men- a woman in puberty and body development is well aware her body is preparing for children from a very young age- so its something that is always with you- it seems it should be a natural thing when you spend your whole life preparing for it so its much more than simply a privilege- it should be something all women can do if they want.
There are so many different ways of looking at it and the boundaries between a lot of treatments of the NHS are very blurred.
You cannot only offer treatment to people with 'life threatening' conditions; quality of life must be considered too. The NHS has a duty to provide treatments that improve people's lives as well as prolonging them.
Deciding which treatments to make available on the NHS is a delicate balance; the fundholders need to weigh the cost of treatment against the efectiveness of that treatment, in terms of quality of life for the maximum number of people.
If treatment A improves someone's quality of life by 80%, but is so expensive that it can only be offered to one person, and treatment B improves quality of life by only 30% but is cheap enough to offer to 300 people, which should be funded?
Using the cost v benefit argument, it would be difficult to decide in favour of , say, hip replacement rather than 'transsexual operations' (or GRS, as we prefer to call it); one treatment is relatively cheap (about £7000) and only benefits a handful of patients, but improves their lives hugely for many years (and in the long term, is cheaper than any alternative), while the other is almost twice as expensive (£12-15000), affects vastly more people,and offers a relatively small improvement, but for only for a few years; ten to fifteen on average.
Which is more cost effective? (And of course, which is going to be more popular with the general public?)
So how do they "know" you've been trying for 2 years?
A consultant will never go straight for IVF treatment.
I have been under my consultant for 2 1/2 years and I have had 11 cycles of fertility treatment. Im not even on the NHS IVF list yet because there are other, less costly treatments to try first.
A consultant usually knows roughly how long you have been trying for.
[QUOTE=pickwick]Do all the older people we hear about having kids have their IVF privately, or do they get it on the NHS? Because it's just as dangerous and complicated to have kids when you're older as it is if you're overweight.
As I have been led to believe, the NHS will only accept a woman for IVF treatment up to her 40th birthday. In fact, I don't think they can accept a woman onto the waiting list within 6 months of her 40th birthday.
There are already very strict criteria for accepting a couple for NHS funded IVF treatment. For example, they must be married, neither have children from a previous relationship, have been trying naturally for at least 2 years (shorter if over 35 years of age, a year I think).
People are not accepted for NHS funded IVF willy-nilly. They have to fulfill an already strict criteria.
Not strictly true, I do believe the rule of having children from previous relationships has been overruled. I know it doesnt apply to me.
I think its fair enough. If someone wants to have the treatment and knows they need to lose weight then they will lose weight, and yes I know how hard it can be to lose weight but it depends on your priorities. I'm a smoker but if I was told I had to stop smoking to qualify I would give up smoking - if I didn't then that would be a choice I've made.
I watched a TV programme the other night which showed just how much time and resources it takes to stop someone with annorexia from starving themselves to death. The biggest investment seemed to be in trying to keep sufferers alive - a cure being a distant hope.
Whilst I agree that resources need to be targetted and matched to likely treatment success therefore the mobidly obese and those with annorexia should be discounted - they are still entitled to NHS treatment to deal with their eating disorder and if sucessful should be entitled to IVF treatment surely. Thus not really cost saving in the long run.
Of course they're entitled to treatment if they overcome their anorexia/obesity, which puts them on the same footing as everyone else. Let me put this a different way. Which do you think is better? Offering an obese woman IVF that you know is unlikely to succeed, and watching her grief when it doesn't work (and I'm well aware of how traumatic failed IVF is), or helping her to overcome her weight problem (which may not actually be that much of a drain on the NHS if she is well motivated), offering IVF with a much better chance of success, AND the possibility of a healthier life with fewer obesity-related illnesses in the future?
It's not even just the financial cost of failed IVF in obese women, the emotional cost of failure is a factor as well, and if one can minimise both of these by assisting the woman to lose weight (or gain weight, in the case of anorexics), that surely must be a good thing.
You cannot only offer treatment to people with 'life threatening' conditions; quality of life must be considered too. The NHS has a duty to provide treatments that improve people's lives as well as prolonging them.
Deciding which treatments to make available on the NHS is a delicate balance; the fundholders need to weigh the cost of treatment against the efectiveness of that treatment, in terms of quality of life for the maximum number of people.
If treatment A improves someone's quality of life by 80%, but is so expensive that it can only be offered to one person, and treatment B improves quality of life by only 30% but is cheap enough to offer to 300 people, which should be funded?
Using the cost v benefit argument, it would be difficult to decide in favour of , say, hip replacement rather than 'transsexual operations' (or GRS, as we prefer to call it); one treatment is relatively cheap (about £7000) and only benefits a handful of patients, but improves their lives hugely for many years (and in the long term, is cheaper than any alternative), while the other is almost twice as expensive (£12-15000), affects vastly more people,and offers a relatively small improvement, but for only for a few years; ten to fifteen on average.
Which is more cost effective? (And of course, which is going to be more popular with the general public?)
I was only responding to people basing their argument on the life threatening issue. You don’t need to explain all of this to me!
Absolutely agree. Having children is not a right, it's a privilege.
So is skiing , or rock climbing , or motor racing or sky diving , paragliding , etc etc etc , what happens when the people who choose to do those sports have accidents , not treat them ?
I know accidents are different to having a child , but sorry, look at those two people jailed yesterday for the torture and abuse of the child , they were both about the correct weight from seeing their pictures , did that make them better parents ?
Before we start saying what weight people can be to conceive maybe we should get a psychiatric report to see if they are fit to be parents.
And if we are to restrict weight , is this just to conceive and give birth or should we go the whole hog and parents be monitored throughout their childs life and the minute they go over their target weight Social Services remove the child ?
I tell you what I bet there are many kids who would rather have an overweight loving parent who idolises them and keeps them safe than a thin one who beats them for kicks.
And if its just about obesity preventing the IVF from working then work with the parent to get them to a weight that it can be effective.
So is skiing , or rock climbing , or motor racing or sky diving , paragliding , etc etc etc , what happens when the people who choose to do those sports have accidents , not treat them ?
I know accidents are different to having a child , but sorry, look at those two people jailed yesterday for the torture and abuse of the child , they were both about the correct weight from seeing their pictures , did that make them better parents ?
Before we start saying what weight people can be to conceive maybe we should get a psychiatric report to see if they are fit to be parents.
And if we are to restrict weight , is this just to conceive and give birth or should we go the whole hog and parents be monitored throughout their childs life and the minute they go over their target weight Social Services remove the child ?
I tell you what I bet there are many kids who would rather have an overweight loving parent who idolises them and keeps them safe than a thin one who beats them for kicks.
And if its just about obesity preventing the IVF from working then work with the parent to get them to a weight that it can be effective.
Its not about being a better parent if your a certain weight . IVF and becoming pregnant in general have better succes rates if you are a healthy weight.
It comes across to me that obese people are being used by the NHS to make it look as if they are being sensible with money.
I wonder if they sat round a table asking eachother and listing what demographic of society can they exclude to save a few pennies.
The NHS is in severe debt. That is obvious, yet they try to tell us they making savings by excluding a certain person from certain treatments. This is like knocking the movie channels off your Sky subscription, when the fact is you can't afford Sky/internet/Which magazine subscriptions in the first place.
I wish someone would have the balls to come along and deal with the mess of the NHS once and for all. If it takes 10 years to go back to basics to get it back on track I would be happier. Which would mean no IVF for anyone until they can afford it for all.
It comes across to me that obese people are being used by the NHS to make it look as if they are being sensible with money.
I wonder if they sat round a table asking eachother and listing what demographic of society can they exclude to save a few pennies.
The NHS is in severe debt. That is obvious, yet they try to tell us they making savings by excluding a certain person from certain treatments. This is like knocking the movie channels off your Sky subscription, when the fact is you can't afford Sky/internet/Which magazine subscriptions in the first place.
I wish someone would have the balls to come along and deal with the mess of the NHS once and for all. If it takes 10 years to go back to basics to get it back on track I would be happier. Which would mean no IVF for anyone until they can afford it for all.
The only way to sort out the NHS, in the light of increasingly expensive (and effective) treatments is the introduction of private health schemes, which would lead to a two-tier system. Personally, I think that will come eventually, I can't see any alternative.
A consultant will never go straight for IVF treatment.
I have been under my consultant for 2 1/2 years and I have had 11 cycles of fertility treatment. Im not even on the NHS IVF list yet because there are other, less costly treatments to try first.
A consultant usually knows roughly how long you have been trying for.
True. We first went to our GP after a year of trying. That was 2 years ago and we have still not been referred to NHS funded IVF, or any fertility treatment for that matter. I've had a laparoscopy and my husband has had the usual sperm tests (paid for by the NHS of course).
The point I'm making is IVF is simply not that easy to get anyway. If they are going to start making the guidelines even stricter, no one will get it, and I think that's incredibly unfair.
Both me and my husband have paid into the system since leaving school. Neither of us smoke, drink, or are overweight. We are both in very good health. Apart from our fertility issues, I can't even remember the last time I had to have a prescription. We are entitled to medical treatment, the same as any other person in the street.
The problem with the NHS is too many scroungers taking out of the pot and putting nothing back in.
I know this is going slightly off at a tangent as the debate is about whether an obese woman should be offered IVF on the NHS, and this doesn't apply to me. I do tend to agree that an ideal weight would help your chances of success, but being overweight just seems to be the NHS's "get out of jail free card". Overweight people are always an easy target.
I agree seriously overweight people need to lose weight before any fertility treatment/any kind of surgery (unless of an urgent nature). But that's just common sense isn't it?
A consultant will never go straight for IVF treatment.
I have been under my consultant for 2 1/2 years and I have had 11 cycles of fertility treatment. Im not even on the NHS IVF list yet because there are other, less costly treatments to try first.
A consultant usually knows roughly how long you have been trying for.
Yet, maybe not that surprisingly, my private consultant told me to give IVF a go as it was worth a punt less than 3 months after I had my first consultation with him.
That was after all my hormone tests came back ok, my OHs sperm test was ok and I’d had a laparoscopy that showed some endometriosis, which he said he’d managed to improve.
We weren’t offered any other treatment at all, just told IVF was ‘worth a try’. And he could get us in within the month.
We refused as we said we felt we wanted to wait a couple of months and he told us it was our decision but he would advise we didn’t wait any longer.
I fell pregnant less than 2 months later but miscarried at 12 weeks. I then fell pregnant again 6 weeks after that with my son. So we are so pleased we decided to go against his advice and did feel IVF was pushed onto us all too soon.
It does make you wonder if, when you’re private, they don’t have the same qualms about unnecessary treatments when you’ve got your cheque book out and it’s not public funds.
Its not about being a better parent if your a certain weight . IVF and becoming pregnant in general have better succes rates if you are a healthy weight.
Most of my quote was in response to the mention that to be a parent is a priviledge etc. I did note at the bottom that if IVF would possibly not work with overweight people then something could be done to help the person lose weight , but most of my post was aimed at the fact that a previous comment had sounded like parenting was a priviledge and not a right and my thoughts on that and comparing overweight and correct weight parents.
It does make you wonder if, when you’re private, they don’t have the same qualms about unnecessary treatments when you’ve got your cheque book out and it’s not public funds.
I think that's true, although it shouldn't be. Money can buy you most things! I guess they figure it's your (financial) loss, and they can always say they advised you against it if the treatment fails.
This could be controversial but I don't think IVF should be available to anyone on the NHS, it costs a fortune and isn't life threatening as such. There are also other options which more people, I feel, should take.
Comments
And its as clear cut as that is it? In your little world maybe..
I think the people casting scorn on these women and say no way should NHS pay have clearly luckily – never yearned for child and not been able to have one or simply don’t want kids. I want kids more than anything in my future- I’m not trying yet and wont be for a few years, but can well imagine feeling like it was the end of my world if I couldn’t have them.
I think many who say its privilege could well be men- a woman in puberty and body development is well aware her body is preparing for children from a very young age- so its something that is always with you- it seems it should be a natural thing when you spend your whole life preparing for it so its much more than simply a privilege- it should be something all women can do if they want.
There are so many different ways of looking at it and the boundaries between a lot of treatments of the NHS are very blurred.
Look, what part of "this is not a moral argument" are you having a problem with? I'm sorry if you disagree, but if it's a choice between funding a heart operation that WILL succeed and will give someone the chance of a new life, or paying for an IVF procedure that statistically has very little chance of succeeding, the choice is pretty obvious.
Very well said. I hope you get your long awaited child Holly, when you decide the time is right.
It is true that the NHS pay for a lot of "non-life threatening" operations. I have a friend who got a boob job on the NHS because her small breasts were psychologically damaging her. I didn't have a problem with my taxes paying for this, as we ALL take money out of the system for one reason and another. No one has the right to decide what's important to someone else.
Whilst I agree that resources need to be targetted and matched to likely treatment success therefore the mobidly obese and those with annorexia should be discounted - they are still entitled to NHS treatment to deal with their eating disorder and if sucessful should be entitled to IVF treatment surely. Thus not really cost saving in the long run.
I think I wouldn't mind this so much if it was advice rather than a ban - because yeah, lose weight, stop smoking, generally get healthy and see if you can then conceive, before you even think about IVF. And I wouldn't mind so much if BMI was a reliable indicator, or if the classification of "obese" was what a normal person would call obese. But these days obese is about a size 16, which is ridiculous.
And while I sympathise with people saying that infertility can cause depression and anxiety, mental problems tend to be things you have a tendency towards in the first place, and I don't think that's an ideal qualification to get special help to have children, to be honest. The underlying problems aren't going to just miraculously go away and having children can cause all sort of new problems. And trying to bring up a child when you're prone to depression and anxiety isn't ideal for the parent OR the child. I'm not saying it can't be done successfully, but it's hard, and I don't think we should be going out of our way to put more people in that position.
As I have been led to believe, the NHS will only accept a woman for IVF treatment up to her 40th birthday. In fact, I don't think they can accept a woman onto the waiting list within 6 months of her 40th birthday.
There are already very strict criteria for accepting a couple for NHS funded IVF treatment. For example, they must be married, neither have children from a previous relationship, have been trying naturally for at least 2 years (shorter if over 35 years of age, a year I think).
People are not accepted for NHS funded IVF willy-nilly. They have to fulfill an already strict criteria.
So how do they "know" you've been trying for 2 years?
You cannot only offer treatment to people with 'life threatening' conditions; quality of life must be considered too. The NHS has a duty to provide treatments that improve people's lives as well as prolonging them.
Deciding which treatments to make available on the NHS is a delicate balance; the fundholders need to weigh the cost of treatment against the efectiveness of that treatment, in terms of quality of life for the maximum number of people.
If treatment A improves someone's quality of life by 80%, but is so expensive that it can only be offered to one person, and treatment B improves quality of life by only 30% but is cheap enough to offer to 300 people, which should be funded?
Using the cost v benefit argument, it would be difficult to decide in favour of , say, hip replacement rather than 'transsexual operations' (or GRS, as we prefer to call it); one treatment is relatively cheap (about £7000) and only benefits a handful of patients, but improves their lives hugely for many years (and in the long term, is cheaper than any alternative), while the other is almost twice as expensive (£12-15000), affects vastly more people,and offers a relatively small improvement, but for only for a few years; ten to fifteen on average.
Which is more cost effective? (And of course, which is going to be more popular with the general public?)
A consultant will never go straight for IVF treatment.
I have been under my consultant for 2 1/2 years and I have had 11 cycles of fertility treatment. Im not even on the NHS IVF list yet because there are other, less costly treatments to try first.
A consultant usually knows roughly how long you have been trying for.
Not strictly true, I do believe the rule of having children from previous relationships has been overruled. I know it doesnt apply to me.
Of course they're entitled to treatment if they overcome their anorexia/obesity, which puts them on the same footing as everyone else. Let me put this a different way. Which do you think is better? Offering an obese woman IVF that you know is unlikely to succeed, and watching her grief when it doesn't work (and I'm well aware of how traumatic failed IVF is), or helping her to overcome her weight problem (which may not actually be that much of a drain on the NHS if she is well motivated), offering IVF with a much better chance of success, AND the possibility of a healthier life with fewer obesity-related illnesses in the future?
It's not even just the financial cost of failed IVF in obese women, the emotional cost of failure is a factor as well, and if one can minimise both of these by assisting the woman to lose weight (or gain weight, in the case of anorexics), that surely must be a good thing.
I was only responding to people basing their argument on the life threatening issue. You don’t need to explain all of this to me!
So is skiing , or rock climbing , or motor racing or sky diving , paragliding , etc etc etc , what happens when the people who choose to do those sports have accidents , not treat them ?
I know accidents are different to having a child , but sorry, look at those two people jailed yesterday for the torture and abuse of the child , they were both about the correct weight from seeing their pictures , did that make them better parents ?
Before we start saying what weight people can be to conceive maybe we should get a psychiatric report to see if they are fit to be parents.
And if we are to restrict weight , is this just to conceive and give birth or should we go the whole hog and parents be monitored throughout their childs life and the minute they go over their target weight Social Services remove the child ?
I tell you what I bet there are many kids who would rather have an overweight loving parent who idolises them and keeps them safe than a thin one who beats them for kicks.
And if its just about obesity preventing the IVF from working then work with the parent to get them to a weight that it can be effective.
Its not about being a better parent if your a certain weight . IVF and becoming pregnant in general have better succes rates if you are a healthy weight.
I wonder if they sat round a table asking eachother and listing what demographic of society can they exclude to save a few pennies.
The NHS is in severe debt. That is obvious, yet they try to tell us they making savings by excluding a certain person from certain treatments. This is like knocking the movie channels off your Sky subscription, when the fact is you can't afford Sky/internet/Which magazine subscriptions in the first place.
I wish someone would have the balls to come along and deal with the mess of the NHS once and for all. If it takes 10 years to go back to basics to get it back on track I would be happier. Which would mean no IVF for anyone until they can afford it for all.
The only way to sort out the NHS, in the light of increasingly expensive (and effective) treatments is the introduction of private health schemes, which would lead to a two-tier system. Personally, I think that will come eventually, I can't see any alternative.
True. We first went to our GP after a year of trying. That was 2 years ago and we have still not been referred to NHS funded IVF, or any fertility treatment for that matter. I've had a laparoscopy and my husband has had the usual sperm tests (paid for by the NHS of course).
The point I'm making is IVF is simply not that easy to get anyway. If they are going to start making the guidelines even stricter, no one will get it, and I think that's incredibly unfair.
Both me and my husband have paid into the system since leaving school. Neither of us smoke, drink, or are overweight. We are both in very good health. Apart from our fertility issues, I can't even remember the last time I had to have a prescription. We are entitled to medical treatment, the same as any other person in the street.
The problem with the NHS is too many scroungers taking out of the pot and putting nothing back in.
I know this is going slightly off at a tangent as the debate is about whether an obese woman should be offered IVF on the NHS, and this doesn't apply to me. I do tend to agree that an ideal weight would help your chances of success, but being overweight just seems to be the NHS's "get out of jail free card". Overweight people are always an easy target.
I agree seriously overweight people need to lose weight before any fertility treatment/any kind of surgery (unless of an urgent nature). But that's just common sense isn't it?
Yet, maybe not that surprisingly, my private consultant told me to give IVF a go as it was worth a punt less than 3 months after I had my first consultation with him.
That was after all my hormone tests came back ok, my OHs sperm test was ok and I’d had a laparoscopy that showed some endometriosis, which he said he’d managed to improve.
We weren’t offered any other treatment at all, just told IVF was ‘worth a try’. And he could get us in within the month.
We refused as we said we felt we wanted to wait a couple of months and he told us it was our decision but he would advise we didn’t wait any longer.
I fell pregnant less than 2 months later but miscarried at 12 weeks. I then fell pregnant again 6 weeks after that with my son. So we are so pleased we decided to go against his advice and did feel IVF was pushed onto us all too soon.
It does make you wonder if, when you’re private, they don’t have the same qualms about unnecessary treatments when you’ve got your cheque book out and it’s not public funds.
Most of my quote was in response to the mention that to be a parent is a priviledge etc. I did note at the bottom that if IVF would possibly not work with overweight people then something could be done to help the person lose weight , but most of my post was aimed at the fact that a previous comment had sounded like parenting was a priviledge and not a right and my thoughts on that and comparing overweight and correct weight parents.
I think that's true, although it shouldn't be. Money can buy you most things! I guess they figure it's your (financial) loss, and they can always say they advised you against it if the treatment fails.
I agree.