The Student Room Group

IVF on the NHS

Poll

The NHS should provide IVF for

We have yet another healthcare postcode lottery when it comes to IVF with more and more Clinical Commissioning Groups cutting funding for IVF treatment, in same cases IVF is now only provided where the patient is undergoing cancer treatment or has HIV.

Provision of healthcare based on postcode surely cannot be justified so what do you feel the NHS should be doing as a whole?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by hovado
We have yet another healthcare postcode lottery when it comes to IVF with more and more Clinical Commissioning Groups cutting funding for IVF treatment, in same cases IVF is now only provided where the patient is undergoing cancer treatment or has HIV.

Provision of healthcare based on postcode surely cannot be justified so what do you feel the NHS should be doing as a whole?


IMO it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account how long they have tried for a baby naturally, any medical issues and their realistic chances of actually carrying a healthy baby to term. There are so many emotional and mental health issues that come with unsuccessful IVF and the number of attempts needs to be limited where they have been unsuccessful a number of times. More of a push for adoption is needed too, as this would alleviate some of the pressure to provide IVF.
It shouldn't be done fullstop. We have enough people as it is, we don't need more.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I wouldn't say that it shouldn't be done but a consistent criteria for everyone should be put in place. Someone shouldn't be deprived of an opportunity to have a baby because of where they live. That's not the point of IVF.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Megan1404
I wouldn't say that it shouldn't be done but a consistent criteria for everyone should be put in place. Someone shouldn't be deprived of an opportunity to have a baby because of where they live. That's not the point of IVF.

Posted from TSR Mobile


They are deprived because they are unlucky or old. Not because of where they live. Simply not doing it is the most consistent policy possible.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
It shouldn't be done fullstop. We have enough people as it is, we don't need more.

Posted from TSR Mobile


The misanthropy is real :mmm:
The NHS should completely reform, including what it offers.

There is no possible way that every new treatment that comes out (and this includes IVF, that wasn't available some time ago) can be paid for, for everyone, by the NHS. I mean do we really need to pay tens of thousands in some cases more, for 80+ year olds to keep them what is essentially artificially, alive?

Now regarding IVF, pay for it yourself. If it's that important to you, I am sure you can pay for it, too.
Reply 7
Avatar for hovado
hovado
OP
4
Original post by DiddyDec
It shouldn't be done fullstop. We have enough people as it is, we don't need more.


Original post by brainhuman
Now regarding IVF, pay for it yourself. If it's that important to you, I am sure you can pay for it, too.


Are there other organs you think the NHS should refuse treat or do we make an exception for testicles and ovaries? You would deprive cancer and HIV patients as well?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by hovado
Are there other organs you think the NHS should refuse treat or do we make an exception for testicles and ovaries? You would deprive cancer and HIV patients as well?


IVF is not a necessary procedure in order to survive it is purely optional.

Don't make such stupid comparisons, not having kids and dying from HIV/cancer are not comparable.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by hovado
Are there other organs you think the NHS should refuse treat or do we make an exception for testicles and ovaries? You would deprive cancer and HIV patients as well?


Lol?

"other organs"?

You realize IVF is not a treatment for an organ that is failing...
Reply 10
Avatar for hovado
hovado
OP
4
Original post by DiddyDec
IVF is not a necessary procedure in order to survive it is purely optional.


Most NHS procedures aren't necessary to survive are they? A broken leg won't kill you.


Original post by DiddyDec

Don't make such stupid comparisons, not having kids and dying from HIV/cancer are not comparable.


I'm not. Currently where IVF funding has been completely cut they still offer it to HIV and cancer patients, i was asking why you don't feel they should receive it either.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 11
Avatar for hovado
hovado
OP
4
Original post by brainhuman
Lol?

"other organs"?

You realize IVF is not a treatment for an organ that is failing...


Course it is, what is oligozoospermia if not an organ not working as it should?
Now regarding IVF, pay for it yourself. If it's that important to you, I am sure you can pay for it, too.


It's one thing being told you will never naturally conceive, but it's another thing telling someone to pay 5k just for the mere possibility.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s
It's one thing being told you will never naturally conceive, but it's another thing telling someone to pay 5k just for the mere possibility.


Tough. If it means that much to them then they can pay up.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
Tough. If it means that much to them then they can pay up.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Then pay for your own procedures since most of them are relatively optional?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by hovado
Most NHS procedures aren't necessary to survive are they? A broken leg won't kill you.

I'm not. Currently where IVF funding has been completely cut they still offer it to HIV and cancer patients, i was asking why you don't feel they should receive it either.


A broken leg could quite easily kill you and severely impact your quality of life leaving you in constant pain if it does not heal properly.

HIV and Cancer are both life threatening and have a severe impact on quality of life. I can leave patients suffering if untreated. Not having kids does not have the above effects.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
A broken leg could quite easily kill you and severely impact your quality of life leaving you in constant pain if it does not heal properly.

A broken leg will not 'easily' kill you.
All you need is a cast and some crutches. Should people have to pay for that themselves then?

HIV and Cancer are both life threatening and have a severe impact on quality of life. I can leave patients suffering if untreated. Not having kids does not have the above effects.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Treatments for cancer (chemo and radiography) can affect fertility. For women, cancer can stop them producing hormones, can damage the lining of the womb and can stop the ovaries from working. Not to mention total removal of the womb in some cases..
Original post by cherryred90s
A broken leg will not 'easily' kill you.
All you need is a cast and some crutches. Should people have to pay for that themselves then?

Treatments for cancer (chemo and radiography) can affect fertility. For women, cancer can stop them producing hormones, can damage the lining of the womb and can stop the ovaries from working. Not to mention total removal of the womb in some cases..


So they just whack a cast on and job done is it? No.

What is your point?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DiddyDec
So they just whack a cast on and job done is it? No.

In most cases, yes. Surgery might be necessary if the leg is out of place but when it comes to a cast and crutches, why shouldn't they pay for it?

What is your point?

Posted from TSR Mobile


You said that cancer doesn't affect fertility.
'Not having kids does not have the above effects'
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s
In most cases, yes. Surgery might be necessary if the leg is out of place but when it comes to a cast and crutches, why shouldn't they pay for it?



You said that cancer doesn't affect fertility.
'Not having kids does not have the above effects'


Because it should be covered by the NHS due to the impact on quality of life.

I said that lack of fertility is not going to kill you or have a significant impact on quality of life. Cancer and HIV does.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you