Why the NHS is on the road to ruin.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....single-mother-39.html

Is it any wonder that our NHS is on the road to ruin?

Should single mothers receive free IVF treatment?

It is not only the cost of the IVF treatment to the NHS, but it doesn't stop there, how much will it cost the state to support these single mothers, don't we have enough to support already?

And should foreign nationals such as this Nigerian be allowed to come to Britain to give birth to quintuplets conceived in Africa after she swallowed a course of high-dose fertility tablets?

/// Her bill to the taxpayer is already £200,000 and she is fighting Home Office moves to return her to her home country.///

And I wonder how much that will cost us, if she ever goes back?

[pa___ul3]

I'm not sure I agree with IVF treatment on the NHS anyway, athough I'm not 100%, I just edge that way, a decent argument may sway me.
Regarding the Nigerian woman, I'm not convinced by the spin on this given that they were born prematurely, if the health of her 5 babies are in jeopardy then she's going to fight all she can for them, that goes without saying.

[R1Geezer]

IVF treatment should not be available on the NHS, there is no shortage of people, if anyone wants IVF then they should fund it themselves. No doubt this will be ooman rites related!

[jno]

no, I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS; it's a lifestyle thing rather than a health issue as such. It's to do with priorities: there are more important and urgent things for the NHS to spend money on.

[Gladeian]

IVF should be at the expense to the NHS in only exceptional circumstances and to British Nationals only. The Nigerian woman and all her spawn should be deported without delay and without expense to NHS or any other government department. Probably fighting the attempts to deport her on legal aid I dont doubt. ECHR involved here ?

[AB Editor]

Entirely agree. In fact I may pop a poll up on it. Thanks for the idea everyone.

[Old_Geezer]

IVF treatment for single mothers ? IMO no. IVF treatment should be for those who will provide a loving 2 parent family; not for someone who is selfish enough to put their desire for offspring before the child's needs. No one has a human right to be a parent. But for a couple we can show compassion and help. But then only for a first child: we have more than enough people on the planet, and in this country for that matter, and too many couples who think there's nothing wrong with having more than 2 kids thus ensuring they are part of the problem inflicted on all.

[pa___ul3]

O_G, just because a baby is conceived (naturally or via IVF) while the parents are together this doesn't mean the baby will be born into a 2 parent family let alone grow up in one, the same can be said about single conceivers via IVF who could meet the man they'll be with forever. I don't see that as a reliable basis to judge.
I also don't see how there is anything wrong with having more than 2 children providing the parent(s) has/have the capacity to raise them properly.
I agree with jno, it's fundamentally a lifestyle issue and NHS should be primarily about providing healthcare, certainly while the purse strings are so tight!

[Old_Geezer]

It is one thing to cope with unexpected tragedy, it is an entirely different matter to plan for it from selfish desire.

Yes blow everyone else on the world, they don't matter if we contribute to overpopulating the planet, just so long as we have extracted sufficient wealth to pay for our offspring. You see nothing wrong with that ?

[Ankou]

ivf is not always free on the nhs. this woman must have provided some compelling evidence to suggest her treatment should be funded. getting such funding through the nhs varies from trust to trust, but to assume that all nhs ivf treatment is free, is misguided and naive.

[237SJ]

I`ve never been in a situation where I`m desperate to have a kid and can`t so wouldn`t be able to say but I don`t have a huge problem with IVF on the NHS as a last resort. Only one cycle though. I think the mail is stirring up the usual bad feeling towards single mothers though. A married couple could have IVF on the NHS, have a baby and be divorced a year later thus creating a single mother. I don`t really see the difference.
Health tourism is another story though. It`s no coincidence that most babies that are born on aircraft are on African routes. The mothers just want to get to the UK to have the kids on the NHS and try for citizenship because their kid was born here.

[DrFilth]

you can't blame them 237SJ, if you could have a 3 or 4 bedroomed house for nowt and also be given money for food and clothes you would want to come and stay

[andy-hughes]

The Mail`s slant is - as usual - that people who do not meaure up to the Mail`s perception of deserving individuals living a lifestyle of which they approve - married tax payer, white, UK born etc., shouls not only not have what ever they are getting, but should preferably be gassed without dedlay!

Personally,Ii do not believe that children are a `right`, they are however, a gift not given to everyone.

[LazyGun]

On balance, I wish that prospective parents would be more willing to adopt, rather than embark on 1 or more courses of IVF. Such treatments increasingly seem to be showcased as the province of older women, who often require stronger doses of fertility drugs - and there is some evidence to suggest that such treatments can adversely impact on the development of the embryo.

[AB Editor]

Morning. For those interested in the debate about whether IVF should be available on the NHS you may want to pop in here: http://www.theanswerb.../Question1033873.html

Again, thanks for the poll idea chaps!

[pa___ul3]

O_G, I wasn't talking about tragedy necessarily, as I'm sure you're aware, the bond of marriage isn't as strong as many feel it should be, and I agree that when it's an act of selfish desire, especially when it's worked around a womans career, as if to say 'I've done what I wanted, I quite fancy a baby now' then there are serious moral issues there, but as we know the standard family of 2.4 children isn't the only way to raise a child, there are plenty of single mothers who raise kids on their own far better than a classic model of a happily married man and woman. I'm simply saying I don't think they should rely on a married couple - yes, single woman - no way of deciding.
That said, if it's all done privately, money talks and are morals going to come into it?

Regarding your point on over-population, although I believe it is a potential issue, and I may be being naive, but limiting the amount of children in a family should be the choice of the parents alone, what they can / cannot handle, what they want. Of course those living of handouts are a burden, but there are plenty that just work harder to support their family. China and India have encountered their own problems with limiting offspring.

[venator]

Any pregnant foreign national should post a bond to cover the cost of NHS treatment. £100,000 should do it!

[anotheoldgit]

Andy Hughes

/// Mail`s perception of deserving individuals living a lifestyle of which they approve - married tax payer, white, UK born etc., shouls not only not have what ever they are getting, but should preferably be gassed without dedlay! ///

Preferably gassed without delay?????? what an horrible thing to say.

Maybe this is Andy Hughe's slant on things, but to somehow blame it on the Mail, is taking your 'Daily Mail hate', much too far.

You have every right to choose to hate the Mail if you must, but please don't falsely accuse them of putting such horrendous slants on their stories.

Isn't this doing what you and others are constantly accusing the Daily Mail of, and that is 'making things up for sensational reasons'?