Women over 34 being denied IVF

Watch
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
NICE guidelines say that women can be offered IVF until they are 42, but in over 80% of Clinical Commissioning Groups this is not being offered.

In a country where we are overpopulated, have many children languishing in the foster system and have a stretched NHS, I don't think we should be offering IVF on the NHS at all. Yes, if someone really wants their own biological child and has tried for years, they'll be very happy if they conceive. However, they're not in any harm but are diverting resources away from life-saving treatments.

Bear in mind that the NICE guidelines are exactly that, guidelines. You're advised not to offer to anyone older because it's too likely to be a waste of resources. And the younger someone is the more likely it is to be worth the time and resources, hence the concentrating of resources there by most CCGs. 7 CCGs have done the right thing and don't offer IVF at all.

Do you have sympathy for people who are struggling to conceive? What if they've been deliberately putting it off for years expecting IVF to sort everything out for them? And do you have enough sympathy to divert cancer treatment funding to them instead?
0
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 18
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by ThomH97)
In a country where we are overpopulated, have many children languishing in the foster system and have a stretched NHS, I don't think we should be offering IVF on the NHS at all.
The UK's fertility rate is around 1.8 children per woman. The replacement rate is roughly 2.1. The overpopulation argument against kids doesn't make sense - there are fewer primary and secondary school students than there were several decades ago. The overpopulation is coming from the increase in the elderly population, who need young people to take care of them.
2
reply
katf
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Infertility causes a great deal of suffering and it requires treatment for people to be able to live full and happy lives. IVF treats a genuine cause of suffering. Fostering and adoption isn't the same as having a biological child and experiencing pregnancy.

We don't make it easy for women to have babies young, when it's easier to get pregnant because housing costs are so high and wages are often so low so it takes years to be able to afford decent housing. Then we don't fund the treatment for women to get pregnant later in life so women can't get pregnant.

It's usually not anyone's fault that they struggle with fertility. So why should we have to suffer for the rest of our lives when an effective treatment is available?
7
reply
She-Ra
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Just wanted to say that no woman (or man) live their life expecting for IVF to sort "everything out for them". There are no guarentees that IVF will work.

At the other end of the spectrum, we keep thousands of dying people alive with drugs who essentially will never recover because they are elderly (I'm talking 80s/90s) - do we divert their funding into patients who need life-saving treatment for cancer and other life-threatening illnesses?
5
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
IVF success is so low, who cares.
1
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
The way people talk it's like anything that isn't cancer is a waste of NHS money. It's the national health service not the national cancer service.
I'm neutral on this issue since I can relate to being infertile (hi all my PCOS brethren) but I don't want sprogs so I'm not going to pass judgement on those that do because idk how they feel.
3
reply
Other_Owl
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Well if it's in the NHS fair enough, people use up their life savings just to have one child on private or go overseas. Meanwhile in the other hand with over 65 year costing so far NHS 40% budget and increasing. The over 65 population rapidly increasing. Depsite the I paid my dues in cult, their 44-47 years NI contrubitions is not enough (think about it). Meanwhile in Japan their birth rate is decreasing and the population is aging rapidly.
1
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by random_matt)
IVF success is so low, who cares.
The financial costs involved in IVF cycles, medication and treating side effects can be very high.
That's why I care about taxpayer funded IVF being offered totally free of charge on the NHS to accommodate personal lifestyle decisions that have little to do with health and everything to do with convenience.
I'm female and have no issues with convenience based IVF treatments offered by private clinics that are funded without recourse to public funds.
0
reply
Trapmoneybenny
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Other_Owl)
Well if it's in the NHS fair enough, people use up their life savings just to have one child on private or go overseas. Meanwhile in the other hand with over 65 year costing so far NHS 40% budget and increasing. The over 65 population rapidly increasing. Depsite the I paid my dues in cult, their 44-47 years NI contrubitions is not enough (think about it). Meanwhile in Japan their birth rate is decreasing and the population is aging rapidly.
population is a rather frustrating thing to control, for humans anyways.

It takes long for implemented cultural or governmental policies to take effect and once they do, it is an instant reaction type effect which has long multigenerational effects.
That being said, i have very little sympathy for women who have put off children in their fertile years for a career that only lasts for 2 decades. You had your chance and you blew it off.
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Lucky *******s, i was denied in my 20s.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by ThomH97)
NICE guidelines say that women can be offered IVF until they are 42, but in over 80% of Clinical Commissioning Groups this is not being offered.

In a country where we are overpopulated, have many children languishing in the foster system and have a stretched NHS, I don't think we should be offering IVF on the NHS at all. Yes, if someone really wants their own biological child and has tried for years, they'll be very happy if they conceive. However, they're not in any harm but are diverting resources away from life-saving treatments.

Bear in mind that the NICE guidelines are exactly that, guidelines. You're advised not to offer to anyone older because it's too likely to be a waste of resources. And the younger someone is the more likely it is to be worth the time and resources, hence the concentrating of resources there by most CCGs. 7 CCGs have done the right thing and don't offer IVF at all.

Do you have sympathy for people who are struggling to conceive? What if they've been deliberately putting it off for years expecting IVF to sort everything out for them? And do you have enough sympathy to divert cancer treatment funding to them instead?
It's funny to hear people say that IVF is diverting money away from "life-saving treatments" but never say the same thing about any other service the NHS provides for which doesn't involve people in life threatening situations.

The NHS supports people with a multitude of problems, not just those in life threatening situations.
2
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Ah the joys of socialist healthcare...
2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz)
Ah the joys of socialist healthcare...
What do you oppose about what's been discussed here?
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by SHallowvale)
What do you oppose about what's been discussed here?
I oppose the socialist healthcare's rejection of females over 34, don't you?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz)
I oppose the socialist healthcare's rejection of females over 34, don't you?
Er, yes?
0
reply
TheStupidMoon
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
If they are paying for IVF, how much are they paying for single men or gays to have their children?
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by TheStupidMoon)
If they are paying for IVF, how much are they paying for single men or gays to have their children?
Gays can get pregnant with IVF? Do they put the IVF up the butt where the baby presumably comes out?
0
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by londonmyst)
The financial costs involved in IVF cycles, medication and treating side effects can be very high.
That's why I care about taxpayer funded IVF being offered totally free of charge on the NHS to accommodate personal lifestyle decisions that have little to do with health and everything to do with convenience.
I'm female and have no issues with convenience based IVF treatments offered by private clinics that are funded without recourse to public funds.
I understand, sounds as barmy as that girl getting free tits on the NHS.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by londonmyst)
The financial costs involved in IVF cycles, medication and treating side effects can be very high.
That's why I care about taxpayer funded IVF being offered totally free of charge on the NHS to accommodate personal lifestyle decisions that have little to do with health and everything to do with convenience.
I'm female and have no issues with convenience based IVF treatments offered by private clinics that are funded without recourse to public funds.
Question: should the NHS support mothers who conceive children naturally?

After all, having a child is purely a lifestyle decision. Should someone who has a child be charged for the delivery?
1
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Question: should the NHS support mothers who conceive children naturally?

After all, having a child is purely a lifestyle decision. Should someone who has a child be charged for the delivery?
1) Yes.
Major health complications can arise during and as a result of pregnancy, no matter how conception occurred.

2) Whether the pregnant woman and any partner should be expected to financially contribute towards the delivery/maternity healthcare is an interesting discussion to have.
Bevan's vision of free universal heathcare "from cradle to grave" for all British citizens at point of need- wouldn't expect the parents of a British newborn to have to pay for NHS maternity care.

My uncle was brain damaged and left unable to walk after being brutally attacked by a convicted paedophile.
He was in intensive care and later underwent many operations over the years related to injuries sustained in the attack, most free of charge from the NHS.
For one operation the waiting list was long and the average wait was 8 months, my uncle was in terrible pain and didn't feel he could cope.
A nurse who worked in the hospital's private wing told him medical insurance would cover private treatment available within 48 hours.
My uncle asked for directions to the private wing, spoke to a consultant and made payment by bank transfer.
He had the operation 3 hours later, in the private wing of the same hospital.
2
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

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (134)
58.77%
No (52)
22.81%
Not sure (42)
18.42%

Watched Threads

View All