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?

[Canary42]

I agree.

[sara3]

I think it's easy to say this when you have children.

[mrs_overall]

sara, I hear what you say, but do you think the NHS should be continuing to fund it?

[sara3]

I think chances should be given, yes. I don't think it should be offered to everyone in every situation, and I think it should be limited.. but I believe that's how it is already.

[Canary42]

I don't have children but still found it easy to say !

[Svejk]

Morning mrsO. Putting your head over the parapet here.
I agree. Its one of those things that's always puzzled me.

[mrs_overall]

The NHS currently spends around £400 million a year on IVF which I think could be better spent elsewhere.
It is not just IVF that I object to BTW

[sara3]

Canary, fair do's!

I wonder if it's easier to say when you've chosen to not have children, or not had the luxury of choice. I'm not asking you such a personal question, btw.. just saying ;o)

[NoMercy]

We are prepared to house, clothe, educate and feed the children of those who have never worked a day in their lives...why shouldn't hard-working childless couples have a chance to become parents?

Sexual realignment isn't life-saving surgery but it's given on the NHS.

[sara3]

there's plenty of NHS spending that I don't approve of, but they're all related to things I don't do/need/want

[mrs_overall]

Morning sweaty xx

Yes, head above the parapet but I have my tin helmet on ;-)

[Canary42]

Two wrongs don't make a right NoM. I agree with your second example incidentally but would prefer this thread to concentrate on IVF.

to answer your point on the chance to become parents, there are hundreds of kids seeking parents.

[Svejk]

Nom, I don't think its limited to 'hard working couples'.
If we lived in an ideal world where nobody died for the want of treatment I'd put IVF on a wish-list of desirable goals. But we don't.

[NoMercy]

No, 2 wrongs don't make a right...but then I don't think it's wrong for people to be given IVF on the NHS.

There are people out there who are kept from the womb to the tomb, having one child after another and yet the system is prepared to keep them. Then you have the hardworking who can't have children and can't afford IVF...why shouldn't the system into which they've paid all their lives give them that chance.?

I am not straying from the original topic - I am saying that IVF should be given on the NHS...to taxpayers!

The NHS is very overstretched, yes. They would save a great deal of money cutting out all the middle managers.

[emmie]

totally agree. Nor gastric bands fitting, nor breast enlargements, nor indeed many of the procedures that take money away from actually illnesses that kill people, like cancer, heart disease.

[JoolsTwo]

I couldn't agree more.

[NoMercy]

Em...no money is actually taken away from such people. I've worked in 4 different NHS trusts now and I've worked in Trauma & Orthopaedics, Oncology, Mental Health, Dermatology, Rheumatology and Diabetes & Endocrinology. I have never ever seen one case of someone not being given sufficient and timely treatment when in need. There are many who cannot accept that nothing can be done for them but those who can be treated are treated and no expense is spared.

When I worked in Oncology we (the NHS) used to pay for people to go to Jacksonville in Florida for specialist Proton Therapy. Regardless of age or other circumstances, if your condition is curable, treatable or manageable, you will receive all the treatment you choose.

[emmie]

400 million isn't a small amount, i would also include not treating health tourists, why should hard working tax payers foot the bill for those who bunk in here and get free treatment, stop paying massive salaries to the fat cats in these hospital trusts as well, start getting the service back to what it used to do best, treating people. People have far more expectation than they once had, it's one of envy in many ways, oh look she has had a nose job on the NHS, why can't i, well pay for it then. Its a totally different matter if a person is seriously hurt in an accident and needs reconstructive surgery, but this cosmetic nonsense, boob enlargements should be paid for by the individual. Exceptions being women who have had breast cancer who want reconstructive surgery..

[emmie]

NoM, whilst i appreciate your first hand experiences, i also see a NHS that is under siege, too many people trying to access services, and that service cannot cope.

[janbee]

It should definitely NOT be funded by the already overstretched NHS. It's a PRIVATE matter and should be paid for privately. As with everything else in life, if you can't afford something then do without. It's nature's way of balancing out the species. Don't expect other people to pay for your wants. Sorry...