Poll: The NHS should provide IVF for
All (14)
48.28%
None (12)
41.38%
Cancer and HIV patients only. (3)
10.34%
hovado
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
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?
0
reply
Charlotte's Web
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(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.
5
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
It shouldn't be done fullstop. We have enough people as it is, we don't need more.

Posted from TSR Mobile
2
reply
Megan1404
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
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
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(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
0
reply
username2412509
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(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:
0
reply
brainhuman
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
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.
0
reply
hovado
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(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?
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(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
0
reply
brainhuman
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(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...
1
reply
hovado
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#11
(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.
0
reply
hovado
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(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?
0
reply
cherryred90s
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
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.
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(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
0
reply
cherryred90s
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(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?
2
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(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
0
reply
cherryred90s
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(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..
1
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(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
0
reply
cherryred90s
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(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'
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(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
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (98)
61.64%
No (61)
38.36%

Watched Threads

View All