Scroll to see replies
No.
IVF should only be made free when funded by the uk taxpayer under exceptional circumstances.
Usually relating to women with health problems, genetic abnormalities, a history of repeat miscarriage or stillbirth.
I am a woman who is very likely to choose ivf over the next 10 years.
But I will fund it without burdening the taxpayer with the direct costs of my decision to choose ivf.
IVF should only be made free when funded by the uk taxpayer under exceptional circumstances.
Usually relating to women with health problems, genetic abnormalities, a history of repeat miscarriage or stillbirth.
I am a woman who is very likely to choose ivf over the next 10 years.
But I will fund it without burdening the taxpayer with the direct costs of my decision to choose ivf.
Like all medical procedures provided by the NHS it should be given on a matter of need, not want.
Nope. Having children is a want, and in some cases IVF will also be a want (I do understand people can’t have children by natural methods). Thus I believe expecting the woman to pay is reasonable.
Do you mean we should cut off ivf funding for over 35s as there is less chance of success? Or should they get it over other couples?
It should be same rules across the country as to who gets it and times they can try.
But even 3 attempts doesn’t have a large chance of success does it? Maybe it shouldn’t be paid for for any couple? Better results by spending money on other issues which affect people more (this affects couples mentally where as other things we can pay for would improve physical things)
Overall infertility sucks but we don’t have unlimited funds in the nhs,
It should be same rules across the country as to who gets it and times they can try.
But even 3 attempts doesn’t have a large chance of success does it? Maybe it shouldn’t be paid for for any couple? Better results by spending money on other issues which affect people more (this affects couples mentally where as other things we can pay for would improve physical things)
Overall infertility sucks but we don’t have unlimited funds in the nhs,
Original post by Situ istu
Thanks for the reply
Does anyone else feel the same way especially this days most women study till late 20s (medicine) may not have time for family planning or still paying off debts
Does anyone else feel the same way especially this days most women study till late 20s (medicine) may not have time for family planning or still paying off debts
So?
Why should tax payers foot the bill for poor life planning or selfish want?
This may be controversial... I think having a child is a privilege and not an automatic right. I have sympathy for those with genuine problems, but delaying the process so that you can have a career is a choice.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Situ istu
Should IVF be free for women over 35
Yes
No
Yes
No
No, they had their chance and they blew it. Yeah so what if they were too poor to afford children, hasn't stopped the unemployed from doing it. And frankly the world doesn't need another person to be born.
Original post by Situ istu
I agree NHS has limited funds but for some women it is mental torture. Perhaps first round of IVF should be free.
No. They should have thought about it sooner, they can pay for it themselves.
Well the nhs should pay to fix various issues which affect fertility in males and females.
That is a medical need
That is a medical need
Original post by Catherine1973
Well the nhs should pay to fix various issues which affect fertility in males and females.
That is a medical need
That is a medical need
I agree if they fix the root cause maybe less women will require IVF.
Original post by Situ istu
I agree NHS has limited funds but for some women it is mental torture. Perhaps first round of IVF should be free.
We can't have it all throughout life. There's a clear choice to wait until 35 till having kids.
Fortunately for any person there exists multiple options to becoming a parent. IVF isn't the be all and end all.
My gut reaction was no...
But then the more I think about it, the more I think that's probably wrong.
heres why:
The NHS already works (within its means) to provide services/treatment/facilities for disabled people to live as much of a normal life as possible. I agree with this, and as such those women who have a medical reason causing them to not be able to conceive naturally, would be disabled (in a sense) in my book, and should receive medical treatment to help them live normally (be able to have children). Especially when its in the public good.. our birthrate is already too low.
But then you get women who have no medical barrier, but just chose through their lifestyle decisions to not have children until its too late, and then struggle to do so because of their own choices... Should we pay for their mistakes?
The issue with this line of thinking though is that you start to get into all sorts of trouble because there are so many life-style choices that cause the NHS to have to intervene to maintain your normal life. If you choose to get fat, play extreme sports, smoke, take drugs, travel a lot, work to much etc. all things which increase your likelyhood of needing NHS intervention in your life. Many cases are similar to pregnancy where they leave you with a problem that's not about to end your life, but is impeding your normal-living in some how, and for most of them the NHS provides.. so why not for women who made the choice not to have children early? Why are they different from the rest?
For me, the only pratical and ethical thing is that you either treat all self-inflicted problems, nor none. Once you start picking and choosing your entering a practical and ethical nightmare, which we are kind of allready in.. people just don't fully realise it, because this type of debate about the NHS isn't usually had at any decent level.. politicans are far to scared of that.
But then the more I think about it, the more I think that's probably wrong.
heres why:
The NHS already works (within its means) to provide services/treatment/facilities for disabled people to live as much of a normal life as possible. I agree with this, and as such those women who have a medical reason causing them to not be able to conceive naturally, would be disabled (in a sense) in my book, and should receive medical treatment to help them live normally (be able to have children). Especially when its in the public good.. our birthrate is already too low.
But then you get women who have no medical barrier, but just chose through their lifestyle decisions to not have children until its too late, and then struggle to do so because of their own choices... Should we pay for their mistakes?
The issue with this line of thinking though is that you start to get into all sorts of trouble because there are so many life-style choices that cause the NHS to have to intervene to maintain your normal life. If you choose to get fat, play extreme sports, smoke, take drugs, travel a lot, work to much etc. all things which increase your likelyhood of needing NHS intervention in your life. Many cases are similar to pregnancy where they leave you with a problem that's not about to end your life, but is impeding your normal-living in some how, and for most of them the NHS provides.. so why not for women who made the choice not to have children early? Why are they different from the rest?
For me, the only pratical and ethical thing is that you either treat all self-inflicted problems, nor none. Once you start picking and choosing your entering a practical and ethical nightmare, which we are kind of allready in.. people just don't fully realise it, because this type of debate about the NHS isn't usually had at any decent level.. politicans are far to scared of that.
The NHS is already crumbling under pressure from funding, staff and every other angle imaginable and doesn't represent value to the taxpayer
You can't just answer this question with 'yes' or 'no'.
"Over 35" - what, of any age? 60? Effectiveness decreases with age, so obviously there must be a max age.
Are you allowing unlimited attempts? Presumably not. Effectiveness decreases with number of attempts - so obviously max number.
Surely you would have some requirement about having tried other things first? Surely there would be a requirement about having already had children previously.
Then there's just huge problems with the logistics of IVF provision now that the government reorganised the NHS so it'd be easier to privatise. Each area pays for its own stuff, so making them all do the same thing is gonna be hard...
Complex, but interesting problem. To what extent do we rate the 'suffering' of not having children, as suffering?
"Over 35" - what, of any age? 60? Effectiveness decreases with age, so obviously there must be a max age.
Are you allowing unlimited attempts? Presumably not. Effectiveness decreases with number of attempts - so obviously max number.
Surely you would have some requirement about having tried other things first? Surely there would be a requirement about having already had children previously.
Then there's just huge problems with the logistics of IVF provision now that the government reorganised the NHS so it'd be easier to privatise. Each area pays for its own stuff, so making them all do the same thing is gonna be hard...
Complex, but interesting problem. To what extent do we rate the 'suffering' of not having children, as suffering?
(edited 4 years ago)
Bad idea. Most women that would need IVF past 35 can afford it by themselves, the government shouldn't subsidise their cold feet in wanting a career over family. This would just encourage more women to work past their fertile years thinking they can just do IVF, and result in the women who knew they wanted kids earlier on to just have less kids because they had their first at an older age.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
