Donate SIGN UP

IVF on the NHS

Avatar Image
AB Editor | 16:47 Mon 04th Jul 2011 | Family & Relationships
138 Answers

This poll is closed.

Should IVF be available on the NHS?

  • No. - 141 votes
  • 59%
  • Yes. - 97 votes
  • 41%

See final stats

Stats until: 19:02 Mon 15th Apr 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)


81 to 100 of 138rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Karenmac - brilliant answer, I find this too emotive to think straight.
I had my child at 36! I never expected it would happen. Of course I can't imagine not having him now. I had great trouble conceiving because of a medical problem, but I would never have considered IVF. But then I have to be honest and say I really wasn't bothered one way or another about having a child.
yes they do prescribe drugs for depression on nhs lol. Great answer karen. Loftie thanks for great discussion. Its great that everyone has different opinions here without an argument. X
Karen, I agree with your sentiments about what is going on in this country, lots need fixing and people putting back on track. However it doesn't mean we should burden the NHS further with things it wasn't meant for originally, and as for drug addicts and the like taking the resources of the NHS that's another thing that should be stopped....sigh
An emotive subject and yes 4get, it is really nice to be able to have a chat on here and respect other people's views.

I agree with your sentiments Karen, but also agree with classylady. The NHS is dreadfully overstretched and there are lots of things that need sorting out. I just think that top priority should be to look after the sick, anything else is a bonus.

Sleep tight everybody. Night night. x
Sorry Loftie, I wasn't having a go - I had my first at 31 (didn't think it was ever going to happen) and now have five. I think not having a child can possibly lead to other problems (and I say that with the two youngest asleep on the sofa - they are working as a tag team at the moment).
I voted no because we cannot afford it, just that. I would also vote no to the treatment of anyone whose illness is self inflicted, such as alcoholics, drug addicts etc. (including smokers). And I think it should be remembered that babies grow up and they do not always do what you would like them to do. You cannot always be proud of them. It would be nice if this was a perfect world, but it isn't and so those who live in it just have to get on with it and try to make the best of it.
I voted Yes....
I've just re-read this thread and think Lottie that if you weren't bothered about having children in the first place then you have no understanding of someone like me who from quite young wanted at least 6 children. I do hope that your son has no problems having children and he never has to know what it is like sitting in a waiting room with pregnant women and then waiting for the results of your last test to be told it is no again. There but for the grace of god go I.
-- answer removed --
I'm sorry, but having children is a privalige, not a right.
Helen, why criticise Lofty for being ambivalent about it? Maybe she was more realistic in her assessment of what child-rearing would actually involve and realised she would have to give up a lot. She is not automatically 'cold' because she was ambivalent about it.

"Teenage children with problems" probably means nutters, vandals, thieves and druggies.
Why would they be smug, the people making the decisions may or may not have children themselves, and be in the same position. I agree with Karen to some extent, but NHS shouldn't do gastric band operations, cosmetic surgery, the exceptions being badly scarred from a trauma, and birth defects, stop endless non essential surgeries, like breast reductions, enlargements. We have come to expect much from our health service, major operations, medicines that can save lives, that once would have been lost, but these can be extraordinarly expensive. Dementia, Alzheimers, Cancer patients need drugs, all expensive treatments.
Drug addicts cost which ever way you look, alcohol abuse far worse. But addicts will steal, deal and cost the country more in the long term if they don't get help, end up in prison, or worse. Mental illness often comes with alcohol, substance abuse, would any suggest we don't help those people.
Our PCT is cutting many Mental health centres because of cost cutting which is a disaster waiting to happen, to replace it with care in the community, is a load of nonsense, it doesn't work, having seen it first hand. If we didn't have endless health tourists, foreign nationals who haven't paid a penny into the pot, then perhaps you could offer IVF to childless women. But as a right no, not at this time.
think you hit nail on head loftie when you said you wernt bothered if you had child or not. But then people who desperately want children would also find ways of paying
i haven't had a chance to read all the posts, but the question is rather vague.

should ivf be available via the nhs : yes
should it be free: no (which is currently how it sits)
I am amazed that some of those in the "no" corner felt the need to keep coming back to drive their opinions home to those who were obviously finding it very upsetting.

you made your point(s), there was no need to keep going at those less fortunate.
Hmm - I find this a very difficult one. The NHS does loads of treatments that aren't strictly life threatening - many of those are to provide a greater quality of life e.g. hip replacements etc. Infertility is a condition like many others that can be treated fairly successfully. It does have an element of playing at God though in that you are deciding someones fate, but then don't doctors do that anyway? I had fertility investigations and I an understand the pain and trauma that people in that position go through to an extent though happily I did have my boys with no treatment required in the end. I have friends and family who paid for their own treatment despite financial hardship. I think it becomes very difficult when you start making all sorts of rules and conditions. However, I think that it should be like a level of support given if the prospective parents also contribute - the NHS contribution should be on a sliding scale dependent on the level of support required/circumstances (not financial) of the patients - this would be where cancer survivors etc would get some extra benefit.
agree annie. X
I voted no. I might not be able to have children. I would like them. Life isn't always fair and a child is not a right.

It's an emotive subject. But it's best not to let emotions get the better of you when you debate it which includes not singling someone out who doesn't agree and also not chastising people who came back to the discussion who didn't agree to discuss with those who were for it. That is the essence of a debate.
sara3, I imagine it's because those who vote No are being accused of being cold and heartless. Once debate gets personalised in this fashion, people come back to defend themselves.

Nobody who has said No has made any personal criticism of those who disagree with them.

81 to 100 of 138rss feed

First Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

IVF on the NHS

Answer Question >>