Ivf On The Nhs

[mrs_overall]

Another post on population growth got me thinking about this. The NHS is already stretched to capacity and infertility is not a life threatening illness. IMO no one has the "right" to have a child and I don't see why NHS resources should be spent on IVF,
Your thoughts?

[mrs_overall]

There have been some very strong opinions and some interesting arguments for and against the idea.
It has made for fascinating reading

[NoMercy]

Baldric, since when was infertility a vain, self-serving lifestyle choice?

I must confess I've never regarded PCOS, endometriosis, endometrial, ovarian and cervical cancers and whole-body radiotherapy for treatment of conditions such as leukemia, all of which can render a person infertile, a vain, self-serving lifestyle choice. Perhaps I should give this some more thought!

A person of limited mobility may be given a joint replacement, and in receiving that joint replacement they are given a better quality of life.

Should a woman rendered infertile by a debilitating condition such as endometriosis not be given IVF when pregnancy nearly always cures endometriosis?

[woofgang]

even endometriosis. org says that pregnancy does not cure endometriosis although it may suppress symptoms for a time.

http://endometriosis.org/resources/articles/myths/

you need to scroll down a bit

[bednobs]

if someone really wants iVF they can save up, surely?

[NoMercy]

My sister had IVF after she was told that her Endometriosos would prevent her ever conceiving naturally. She paid for her IVF and was successful after her first attempt. Her pregnancy cured her condition, as her Consultant had said it would. Four years later she went on to conceive her second child naturally.

Not everyone can afford to save for a family holiday, let alone IVF. Why should the contributions of the hard-working prop up the idle and not give them the help they so desire?"

[bednobs]

i don'r believe any other treatment with a success rate of less than 25% would routinely be available on the NHS. With those odds, let people risk their own money rather than NHS money

[anneasquith]

in fairness bed, the success rate for ivf is rising,

[bednobs]

i'm not sure thats true anne - the news this week will take a few years to filter through to actual practice

[woofgang]

NoM I am glad that your sister had a happy ending but the fact remains that pregnancy is not a cure for endometriosis.

[bednobs]

hysterectomy also cures endometriosis, and has a 100% success rate

[woofgang]

bedknobs, hysterectomy only works if the the endometrial tissue growths that are elsewhere in the body are also removed. I had a friend who was treated for it, hers had attached to the pelvic aspect of her hip joint external to the capsule but she met women who had tissue growths in the nose and also in the brain!

[NoMercy]

Yep, bear the expense of giving a woman a woman a TAH/BSO and years of either HRT or even bisphosphonates to ward off osteoporosis rather than IVF, which would be her treatment of choice. I can see the logic in that.

Moreover, why should a tax payer have any say in how their contributions are spent?

[NoMercy]

Well, woofgang, what can I say...except that my sister's pregnancy cured her endometriosis. I suppose it's a question of degrees, and hers had not begun to affect other areas of her body.

[woofgang]

NoM you speak as though the IVF and the hysterectomy are alternatives when in fact the person might have the IVF then go on to need a hysterectomy as well..
I do realise that you have personal feelings about this but objectively the argument doesn't stack up.

[bednobs]

taxpayers don't get a say in how their contributions are spent though do they? (well, only through voting) I am rather like cd - it is available on the NHS at the moment, so have no problem with those that fulfill the criteria accessing it, but if i were starting from scratch, i would not include it on the things available on the NHS

[bednobs]

also, i suppose what i was saying about hysterectomy Vs IVF is 100% Vs 25% seems a no brainer to me (although i accept it seems i'm wrong about the 100% stuff)

[woofgang]

I know a little bit because of my friend. Apparently the thinking is that where the tissue is not attached to the womb and ovaries, where the sufferer is young and where there is no reason to think that there is disease in the reproductive system, the surgical treatment of choice is to remove the endometrial tissue, leave the reproductive system alone and monitor. If the tissue appears elsewhere and regrows, then hysterectomy would be considered.

[1ndex]

NHS is able to do IVF as tax payers have paid for research. TP should have what they pay for, in return

[NoMercy]

Woofgang, you misunderstand me...I am not advocating IVF as a treatment for endometriosis, I am saying that why deny a woman who has worked hard and payed her taxes the chance to achieve her lifetime ambition of being a mum?

If our taxes can bankroll the lifestyles and fund the addictions of society's miscreants, why can it not give specialist intervention in the case of someone who is medically infertile?

[sherrardk]

I think IVF should be funded on the NHS. There are already strict criteria about who is eligible. The cost per cycle is relatively low and numbers are limited. If you consider that alcohol related treatment cost the NHS 2.7 billion in 2011/2012 http://fullfact.org/factchecks/alcohol_abuse_costs_NHS_2.7_billion-3315 then the cost of IVF is drop in the ocean.