NHS Fertility treatment row...

[Loosehead]

Given that the world is not exactly short of people and that the NHS is creaking under the strain, should the NHS be funding non essential treatmeant at all? I sympathise with infertile couples but the NHS was designed for treating the sick and should not use resources on non health threatening conditions. There are thousands of unwanted babies born each year, surely adoption can be used more as a solution to infertile couples. OK tin hat is on!

[EuanC]

No tin hat needed from me - Well said !!

[LazyGun]

I think I would agree with you pretty much.

There are several treatments currently offered on the NHS that should not be, in my view, and one of those is Fertility treatments, for pretty much the reasons you have given in your post.

[suffragette]

Even a liberal lefty like me agree with you on this one, Loosehead. I'm lucky to have children, but being a parent is not a human right, nor is it a medical necessity.

[anotheoldgit]

No argument here but surely we must first address this question "why is the NHS creaking under the strain". and the answer must be, there are too many people taking out and not enough putting in. But now we are back to the immigration situation once again. So I maintain that if one has paid into the kitty then one should get the full benefits that they have paid for. Gis a loan of your tin hat.

[Kim A]

I agree, too. Not being able to have a child is sad, and I sympathise, but being unable to conceive is not an illness. One's physical health is not compromised by not being able to have a child (although I suppose one could argue that mental health might be an issue). Surely natural selection dictates that if you can't conceive, there's a jolly good reason why you can't (and probably shouldn't) breed. By the law of averages, there have to be some sterile people in the population, or we'd be over-run with progeny. Loosehead, no bricks coming your direction from me on this one, but probably some coming my way for spouting heresy...................................

[Loosehead]

Well we all seem in agreement so far.

I think the reason the NHS is creaking anotheoldgit is not down to funding I think it's down to how the NHS is structured. It can't be right to have more clerks than beds. There is a huge management structure eating funds. Now I'm not saying that it doesn't need manageing but surely it can be simplified. The NHS just seems to pi55 money down the drain on mad schemes. For example to the new computer system, I work in IT and I can't see how they can spend that sort of money on a system that is essentially very simple! Top heavy with consultants on 1k a day most likekely, madness. Anyway, I digress!

[jake-the-peg]

Kim's suggestion that natural selection should be allowed to decide who reproduces is a somewhat dangerous idea.

You can use the same arguement to stop treatment on any serious child-hood illness.

"We're not treating your child's hole in the heat condition because we don't think he should reproduce"

Not herasy but just badly thought out that one I think.

As for the original question I've an open mind still, I'd like to hear opinions why it should be publicly funded

[Ed Strong]

I agree with the views of everyone so far. However, has anyone noticed (this is where I put on the tin hat that's being passed around) it seems that the part of society that you would least like to produce are the most prolific (I know of no other polite way of putting that)? Just ducking behind the nearest brick wall =0)

[Kim A]

Actually, I wasn't advocating eugenics or anything like that, nor did I suggest that treatment be withheld from someone with any medical condition (and I've got a hole in the heart myself!) to prevent them breeding - don't know quite how you interpreted my answer that way! What I said was that some people who can't have children PROBABLY shouldn't have them. It's like people who [put themselves through putative pregnancy after pregnancy, trying to bring a baby to term, but miscarrying every time. Not being able to bring a baby to term is nature's way of letting a body know that there's something amiss, either with your body, or with the foetus. Surely, by the same token, if you try and try and try to conceive, to no effect, your body is trying to tell you something. Not being able to have children doesn't infringe a person's human rights and a child is not a necessity. The question was whether or not NHS resources should be spent on giving infertile people the 'chance' to have a baby - my response was, no it shouldn't. And as to the Ed Strong question - you, my man, are on dangerous (but oh so true!!!) ground. Pass the hat, babe!

[newtron]

I agree with J-t-p. Natural selection is not a good arguement. Kim A, you say that "if you can't conceive... you probably shouldn't." There are many people who may have trouble having a kid, but have plenty of good traits to pass on, and their offspring may contribute a lot to society. So, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to use modern technology to help these people to reproduce. I just wanted to clarify this because Kim A's argument is actually an arguement against fertility treatment in general.

Being an American, I don't know a lot about the NHS, but it seems reasonable to exclude fertility treatment from NHS funding. However, being a student in the UK, I am very impressed with the NHS and you should definitely try to keep it going. I wish health care was free in the US. I must admit that I have taken advantage of the NHS. Yes, I am one of those people who takes but doesn't give (Tin hat please?). I am being paid to go to school in the UK, and my scholarship is non-taxable, but I still get full health benefits. Thanks UK!

[Dizzieblonde]

No need for the tin hat Loosehead, or any of you - it was meant for treating illness and meeting people's *needs* - not their wants. Although it would be nice to have a system where you can have infertility treatments, non-essential cosmetic surgery and sex change operations without paying any more than your tax and National Insurance, it just isn't financially possible - or arguably ethical either, when people with unpreventable disease or injury can't get treatment (as in the Heceptin drug, in some regions) or have to wait unduly.

[Kim A]

Newtron - those people who have admirable traits but can't conceive - are they not capable of passing on their admirable traits, social mores, sensibilities and morals onto an adopted or fostered child? There are lots of unwanted, abandoned, unloved children in the world for whom these people would make great parents. Whilst I understand the biological imperative to reproduce, I still think, if you can't - don't. Use other means to fulfil your need to nurture. The funds for the NHS are inadequate to fulfil everyone's wish for a 'cure' for whatever condition they have. those conditions that are not life trheatening should be excluded. You can't die from not having a baby.

[newtron]

Kim A, so you admit that you are argueing against fertility treatment in general and not just the funding of it by the NHS? That's the point I was trying to make. I agree it probably shouldn't funded by the NHS, but if someone is willing to pay for fertility treatment, I say "go for it."

[Dizzieblonde]

Definitely Newtron - If you've got the money, have three extra arms attached to your body for all I care, but don't expect me to pay for it :oD

[Kim A]

No, I don't necessarily agree with fertility treatment per se, but if someone wants to spend their own money on buying it like yet another commodity, then so be it. I think they would be better served by investing it in a child who needs a home and family and who has already been born, but each to their own.

[lafrancaise]

After reading all this I just can't believe it. Have none of you asked yourselves why many non-fertile couples are infertile? Because during their mother's pregnancy their mothers were given drugs, by the NHS I must add, against morning sickness or other conditions. This caused malformation of the sex organs in the baby. Had this been checked out there wouldn't be as many people having a problem. OK nobody will die by not having a baby, but it's very sad not to continue life's chain.

[Scarlett]

I agree actually. I woud far rather the money be spent on incurable diseases that we are all dying from- cancer/heart disease and many others that still have no cure. I agree about adoption too. And if couples really want their own baby that badly, shouldn't they be prepared to finance it themselves? Or at least operate a benefits system like we do for anything else; if the couple are in receipt of certain benefits, then they can get help with/towards the cost of fertility treatment.
I remember a time when you could get glasses on the NHS. Granted, they only did about 3 frames- John Lennon, pink plastic 6 year old's. and BBC newsreader from1978. They quietly took those away and nobody minds buying their own glasses. I think with the NHS is the situation it is in, it cannot really afford to fund fertility treatment.

Also, is it fair that obese women are denied treatment (obesity is a disease, not simply a case of too many pies)? Surely just the rich should be denied treatment- at least first??!

[Gef]

First of all I think lafranc is talking rubbish.

Generally I agree with most of the answers. The NHS should deal first and foremost with saving lives and making life more bearable. It is a very complex situation and probably one which will be in the news for a long time.

Can I now borrow the tin hat? Lesbians and single women being given the treatment - surely not.

[jake-the-peg]

Having thought about it I think the arguement has to come down to quality of life.

You can make the same case that the NHS shouldn't pay for a prosthetic arm for an amputee who isn't suffering a life threatening condition or that interferon B shouldn't be prescribed for MS patients as it will only improve their quality of life temporarily and not cure them.

It therefore comes down to a financial balance - If fertility treatment were �5 a head I don't think anybody would question funding it - I don't know what it is on average but I'm sure it it's not that.

So the question is probably not whether the NHS should fund it but rather what balance should be struck.

Of course one option might be to means test treatments for non life threatening treatments.

-ps I've just looked it up currently a course of IVF looks like it's about �3,000 with only about a 15% sucess rate

I see now why they why they want to limit it to those with the best chance of conception.