IVF on the NHS
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Hann95
Some of the attitudes displayed towards mental health on this thread are absolutely disgusting. The mental effects of not being able to conceive are far more than "feeling a bit sad" and mental health should be taken just as seriously as a broken leg.
Not for everyone. For some women, conceiving would be just as traumatic an experience. I'd fall back into depression if I discovered I'd conceived, were I not infertile
Original post by Hann95
Some of the attitudes displayed towards mental health on this thread are absolutely disgusting. The mental effects of not being able to conceive are far more than "feeling a bit sad" and mental health should be taken just as seriously as a broken leg.
Yes mental health is serious however so is the cost of IVF and there is more pressing things to spend money on in the nhs such as counsellors for mental health.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by brainhuman
I wouldn't want to break my leg either. What's your point.
There are a lot of things I wouldn't want to do.
There are a lot of things I wouldn't want to do.
I'm not the one who initially asked you although I guess it was because you said infertility causes no physical harm which suggests that you would be open to it considering you won't be harmed.. But I only responded because you are making it seem as if the risks are your only concern.
And why am I so important here? There are many, many people who make themselves voluntarily infertile.
Those people make themselves infertile because they don't want children. Some people are infertile despite wanting children, they didn't have a choice.
Who the **** are you to decide that this is such an important matter it should be paid for by the NHS?
I'm no one to decide and neither are you. The thread is asking for our opinions. Not sure why you're getting so worked up.
ps btw, if I was actually infertile and wanted to reproduce, yea I can see why I would want to get free help. But I also know if it were that important to me, I'd pay off it.
Well yeah of course. It's not available on the NHS yet there are still so many people who pay for treatment. It's a tricky topic. I think that if it were ever introduced on the NHS, there would be a very strict criteria.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by super_kawaii
If I wasn't infertile already, I'd want to be sterilised.
Original post by paul514
Yes mental health is serious however so is the cost of IVF and there is more pressing things to spend money on in the nhs such as counsellors for mental health.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not even talking about in the context of IVF. Describing mental health as "feeling a bit sad" and "if they want it should they just get it" shows a complete lack of understanding about the complexity and destroying affects mental health issues (no matter where they stem from) can have on people.
I completely take your point that funding is a massive issue, and I never said whether I think IVF should be provided on the NHS or not. I simply made an observation about some quite disgusting attitudes towards mental health being demonstrated.
Original post by super_kawaii
Not for everyone. For some women, conceiving would be just as traumatic an experience. I'd fall back into depression if I discovered I'd conceived, were I not infertile
that still doesn't change the fact of that describing depression as "feeling a bit sad" shows a complete lack of understanding of mental health conditions and a total lack of empathy.
Original post by paul514
Yes mental health is serious however so is the cost of IVF and there is more pressing things to spend money on in the nhs such as counsellors for mental health.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Providing mental health care isn't cheap either. Infertility can be caused by other health issues that are covered by the NHS. If i were to want IVF and be denyed it i'd want to make sure i'd been tested for the lot, the blood tests alone would cost the nhs close to the same as a round of IVF, maybe providing IVF would be cheaper?
Original post by hovado
Providing mental health care isn't cheap either. Infertility can be caused by other health issues that are covered by the NHS. If i were to want IVF and be denyed it i'd want to make sure i'd been tested for the lot, the blood tests alone would cost the nhs close to the same as a round of IVF, maybe providing IVF would be cheaper?
Providing mental health counselling is incredibly cheap the wage for an nhs counsellor is low 20's and they treat tens of people every week each.
IVF would certainly be way more expensive
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Hann95
I'm not even talking about in the context of IVF. Describing mental health as "feeling a bit sad" and "if they want it should they just get it" shows a complete lack of understanding about the complexity and destroying affects mental health issues (no matter where they stem from) can have on people.
I completely take your point that funding is a massive issue, and I never said whether I think IVF should be provided on the NHS or not. I simply made an observation about some quite disgusting attitudes towards mental health being demonstrated.
I completely take your point that funding is a massive issue, and I never said whether I think IVF should be provided on the NHS or not. I simply made an observation about some quite disgusting attitudes towards mental health being demonstrated.
Yea and the people who say people who are depressed just feel a bit sad are idiots.
The point is when talking about public services there is always a cost to be fitted into a budget so choices need to be made.
No ivf on the nhs for the funding to go to mental health services is a no brainier, it will quite simply help a lot more people than the Ivf ever could
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Yea and the people who say people who are depressed just feel a bit sad are idiots.
The point is when talking about public services there is always a cost to be fitted into a budget so choices need to be made.
No ivf on the nhs for the funding to go to mental health services is a no brainier, it will quite simply help a lot more people than the Ivf ever could
Posted from TSR Mobile
The point is when talking about public services there is always a cost to be fitted into a budget so choices need to be made.
No ivf on the nhs for the funding to go to mental health services is a no brainier, it will quite simply help a lot more people than the Ivf ever could
Posted from TSR Mobile
Mate I haven't even given my opinion on the question this thread asked so I don't know why you're trying to argue with me. I said I take your point of funding, it's relevant to the matter. You don't need to convince me otherwise.
I think IVF is very important, allowing couples to have children who otherwise wouldn't have been able to. Also, I am IVF 
Original post by paul514
Providing mental health counselling is incredibly cheap the wage for an nhs counsellor is low 20's and they treat tens of people every week each.
IVF would certainly be way more expensive
Posted from TSR Mobile
IVF would certainly be way more expensive
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by cherryred90s
I'm not the one who initially asked you although I guess it was because you said infertility causes no physical harm which suggests that you would be open to it considering you won't be harmed.. But I only responded because you are making it seem as if the risks are your only concern.
Those people make themselves infertile because they don't want children. Some people are infertile despite wanting children, they didn't have a choice.
I'm no one to decide and neither are you. The thread is asking for our opinions. Not sure why you're getting so worked up.
Well yeah of course. It's not available on the NHS yet there are still so many people who pay for treatment. It's a tricky topic. I think that if it were ever introduced on the NHS, there would be a very strict criteria.
Those people make themselves infertile because they don't want children. Some people are infertile despite wanting children, they didn't have a choice.
I'm no one to decide and neither are you. The thread is asking for our opinions. Not sure why you're getting so worked up.
Well yeah of course. It's not available on the NHS yet there are still so many people who pay for treatment. It's a tricky topic. I think that if it were ever introduced on the NHS, there would be a very strict criteria.
I am getting pissed off because your line of argumentation is so poor.
You even contradict yourself - at one point you say it's not selfish, the next post you say isn't everything selfish. At one point you talk about it being mentally devastating, the next it's a physical thing.
You change stories as you see fit. And I am tired of it.
This is a hugely complicated issue with lots of patient and funding factors to be considered to make a balanced decision - I will not be commenting specifically.
I will say two things though:
1) The government's big idea for the NHS is to have everything competing with everything else and any hopes you had for an end to the postcode lottery are a long way off I'm afraid. In fact, things like the cancer treatments and HIV treatments mentioned are themselves becoming more and more postcode specific and that's only likely to increase in the future. Think about how they privatised the trains. That's what they want for the NHS. This is not in the future. This has already happened.
2) The NHS is currently undergoing its biggest funding shortfall it has ever faced and its only going to get worse. The influx of baby-boomer old people will strain the NHS to breaking point and far beyond constantly for about 10 years to come. We can either try to keep going business as usual as ambulances actually queue outside A&E and people actually die of thirst because staff are too stretched to feed people... or we can get realistic and acknowledge that in order to maintain core services, we need to make some cuts. Some treatments that we could offer before, we can't now. Distracting by talking about a '7 day NHS' is not the solution - actually freeing up money to keep the system moving, is. Now I don't know whether IVF is the target of that, but something sure needs to be. And someone needs to be the one strong enough to stand up and say 'this is the plan'. We all know that person is not the bungling Jeremy 'I'm just here so I can get a job as an insurance executive' Hunt. So who will it be?
I don't think you have a very realistic view of infertility medicine. All the non-IVF medicine is really cheap. The small number of relevant blood tests cost about £40 in total. Whereas IVF is really expensive and realistically succeeds only about 20% of the time (higher figures are for ideal patients, which the patient never is), plus is not complication free (including a higher miscarriage and birth complication rate).
Patients can 'demand' all they like - doctors are not obliged to give anything or spend any NHS money unless its actually needed.
I will say two things though:
1) The government's big idea for the NHS is to have everything competing with everything else and any hopes you had for an end to the postcode lottery are a long way off I'm afraid. In fact, things like the cancer treatments and HIV treatments mentioned are themselves becoming more and more postcode specific and that's only likely to increase in the future. Think about how they privatised the trains. That's what they want for the NHS. This is not in the future. This has already happened.
2) The NHS is currently undergoing its biggest funding shortfall it has ever faced and its only going to get worse. The influx of baby-boomer old people will strain the NHS to breaking point and far beyond constantly for about 10 years to come. We can either try to keep going business as usual as ambulances actually queue outside A&E and people actually die of thirst because staff are too stretched to feed people... or we can get realistic and acknowledge that in order to maintain core services, we need to make some cuts. Some treatments that we could offer before, we can't now. Distracting by talking about a '7 day NHS' is not the solution - actually freeing up money to keep the system moving, is. Now I don't know whether IVF is the target of that, but something sure needs to be. And someone needs to be the one strong enough to stand up and say 'this is the plan'. We all know that person is not the bungling Jeremy 'I'm just here so I can get a job as an insurance executive' Hunt. So who will it be?
Original post by hovado
Often the same people over and over for years on end, and thats only one part many will need more than just counselling, and what of all the tests pissed off infertile couples will deemand and get to rule out possible causes of infertility. A round of IVF only costs £2000 - £5000
I don't think you have a very realistic view of infertility medicine. All the non-IVF medicine is really cheap. The small number of relevant blood tests cost about £40 in total. Whereas IVF is really expensive and realistically succeeds only about 20% of the time (higher figures are for ideal patients, which the patient never is), plus is not complication free (including a higher miscarriage and birth complication rate).
Patients can 'demand' all they like - doctors are not obliged to give anything or spend any NHS money unless its actually needed.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by brainhuman
I am getting pissed off because your line of argumentation is so poor.
You even contradict yourself - at one point you say it's not selfish, the next post you say isn't everything selfish. At one point you talk about it being mentally devastating, the next it's a physical thing.
You change stories as you see fit. And I am tired of it.
You even contradict yourself - at one point you say it's not selfish, the next post you say isn't everything selfish. At one point you talk about it being mentally devastating, the next it's a physical thing.
You change stories as you see fit. And I am tired of it.
depending on how you look at it, everything we do in life can have a selfish element to it. For me, choosing to have a child is less selfish than not.
I've always said that infertility is physical. It's the effects of infertility that are psychological.
Original post by nexttime
I don't think you have a very realistic view of infertility medicine. All the non-IVF medicine is really cheap. The small number of relevant blood tests cost about £40 in total. Whereas IVF is really expensive and realistically succeeds only about 20% of the time (higher figures are for ideal patients, which the patient never is), plus is not complication free (including a higher miscarriage and birth complication rate).
Patients can 'demand' all they like - doctors are not obliged to give anything or spend any NHS money unless its actually needed.
I don't think you have a very realistic view of infertility medicine. All the non-IVF medicine is really cheap. The small number of relevant blood tests cost about £40 in total. Whereas IVF is really expensive and realistically succeeds only about 20% of the time (higher figures are for ideal patients, which the patient never is), plus is not complication free (including a higher miscarriage and birth complication rate).
Patients can 'demand' all they like - doctors are not obliged to give anything or spend any NHS money unless its actually needed.
I'm wasn't talking about non ivf fertility treatment but tests for any possible illness that could cause fertility problems. As long as the ccg hasnt removed funding then difficult demanding patients will find they can cost the nhs a small fortune.
Original post by hovado
I'm wasn't talking about non ivf fertility treatment but tests for any possible illness that could cause fertility problems.
Yes. By the time someone gets to IVf those tests are all most definitely done as they're so much cheaper than IVF. To send someone for IVF that didn't need it would be disastrous cost-wise.
As long as the ccg hasnt removed funding then difficult demanding patients will find they can cost the nhs a small fortune.
What, by visiting their GP a lot? Maybe. They get bored eventually though. Again I'll point out: IVF is not a very good treatment - even the most generous CCGs only give one or two rounds at most - the question here is not IVF vs no IVF. Its no IVF vs one maybe two chances that probably won't work anyway. Unless you're suggesting everyone should have unlimited shots at IVF at which case a "small fortune" is a drop in the ocean of the amount of funding you're going to have to come up with!
Original post by Hann95
Some of the attitudes displayed towards mental health on this thread are absolutely disgusting. The mental effects of not being able to conceive are far more than "feeling a bit sad" and mental health should be taken just as seriously as a broken leg.
Definitely! I was an IVF baby, after a few failed attempts here my mum went to the US to try. She tells me how severely depressed she became at not being able to conceive, she even said once that one night she was laying there thinking about US IVF attempt and how it was her last chance as she couldn't afford anymore tries, the thought of it failing upset her so much that she was contemplating ending her life.
Thankfully it worked but the effects of not being able to have children are far more that "feeling a bit sad" from what my mum has explained.
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Definitely! I was an IVF baby, after a few failed attempts here my mum went to the US to try. She tells me how severely depressed she became at not being able to conceive, she even said once that one night she was laying there thinking about US IVF attempt and how it was her last chance as she couldn't afford anymore tries, the thought of it failing upset her so much that she was contemplating ending her life.
Thankfully it worked but the effects of not being able to have children are far more that "feeling a bit sad" from what my mum has explained.
Thankfully it worked but the effects of not being able to have children are far more that "feeling a bit sad" from what my mum has explained.
Well I'm extremely happy for your mum and that you're here today. Medical science is truly amazing!
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Can I drop out of college once I have an unconditional uni offer?Last reply 1 minute ago
What do I need - I've a UK passport but live in EULast reply 3 minutes ago
Oxford Economics Degree ApprenticeshipLast reply 4 minutes ago
My boyfriend left me because he said my breasts and butt were too smallLast reply 5 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 6 minutes ago
Is mental health nursing paid for by the government at UOMLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryPosted 8 minutes ago
BTEC level 3 certificate in performing artsLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 8 minutes ago
anyone else waiting on LSE law?Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official: University of Nottingham A100 2024 Entry Applicant threadLast reply 12 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 13 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 19 minutes ago
LSE Undergraduate Politics and IR 2024Trending
Last reply 59 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 59 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
