# Should IVF be on the NHS?



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

So you're infertile. It's a "disease" recognized by the WHO, but is breeding a "right" and is it up to the tax payer to fund your desire to breed? If you can't breed isn't that just natural selection?

Discuss.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> If you can't breed isn't that just natural selection?


I guess it is, although so's cancer.


----------



## SalsredTT (Jan 8, 2011)

No. The population is exploding all over the world - surely this is Gods way of slowing it down a little??

Plus I hate the thought of paying for someone to have a child when there are thousands of unwanted children. On the other hand, I hate paying for some fat cow who eats too much and doesn't exercise to have a flamin fatty cow band fitted ...........

Ooohh actually I'd rather support IVF then - at least these are people that WANT a child.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

No... and neither should there be child benefit!


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

It's a very emotive subject, and encompasses a wide range of illnesses/ailments - assisted fertility can range from sperm treatments all the way through to IVF itself, so singling out IVF is perhaps showing the limits of your knowledge of the subject :? :roll:

On the same train of thought, should the NHS help alcoholics when their liver packs up, or smokers with cancer, or overweight people who have heart attacks?

You could argue that these are all self inflicted, that people have had plenty warning and have ignored it - if that is so, why should we pay for their problems?


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Why not a man can get tits and his dick turned into a vagina for free


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

It's in the news at the mo. What I'm against more than anything is the unfairness in 'postcode lottery' when it comes to this. It should be a standardised rule across the board - but then that applies to all sorts of treatments.

As mentiuoned above It seems unfair that there are so many more undeserving illnesses like those that are self-inflicted which will, of course, be treated for free.

Friends of mine are going through it at the moment and I think it cost them £9,000 for the first round of treatment. I guess they'd have loved to have been able to go through it for free - especially as the treatment didn't work. There is an argument to say that if you can't afford the treatment, you can't afford to have kids...

I'm undecided.


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

pas_55 said:


> Why not a man can get tits and his dick turned into a vagina for free


You go first :lol:


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

My colleague at work went through IVF, and the treatment failed - very distressing for her and her husband. However, by a sheer stroke of luck, she fell pregnant later on without IVF and had a little girl

She didn't go through the process for fun, as it's invasive physically and emotionally, and incredibly stressful for both the father & mother. To be allowed 2-3 free IVF treatments on the NHS comes with so many strings attached (whether you've had children before, whether the father has had a vasectomy, what illnesses you have or have had, body weight) - it's all too easy to say that because it's free, it should be disallowed - many NHS applicants get turned away before any type of fertility treatment starts.

Assisted fertility is about much much more than IVF. It strikes me that it's men that are posting here...perhaps if your little swimmers needed a little boost, then would your opinions be a little different?


----------



## oceans7 (Oct 20, 2009)

pas_55 said:


> Why not a man can get tits and his dick turned into a vagina for free


 Beats getting an xbox. :lol:


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

oceans7 said:


> pas_55 said:
> 
> 
> > Why not a man can get tits and his dick turned into a vagina for free
> ...


Er no it ruddy doesn't 

I feel I don't really know enough about the ins and outs (  ) to have a fully formed opinion, I suspect it is one of those things that if it has directly impacted you you would be all for it and otherwise mostly disinterested.

Charlie


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

pas_55 said:


> Why not a man can get tits and his dick turned into a vagina for free


Yep which is disgusting! No way should a tax payer pay for this! Get's me really angry this one!!! :evil: :evil: :twisted:


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

No. 
Sad though it may be for those involved, I'd rather see the money being spent on keeping people healthy and alive.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

The problem is that this is only one branch of medicine that is controvertial when supplied free. There are many others that are obvious, like the aforementioned sex change operations and gastric bands. There are countless other areas where money is spent in huge quantities on issues that help those involved but do nothing at all for the population in general. Examples being prolonging the lives of people that are never going to get better and able to function as independant human beings again and some cosmetic interventions. Until some of the sacred cows are slaughtered and we actually decide what we want our health service to actually do, any discussion is pointless. We seem to have the impression that you can't put a price on a life. Well actually you can, for FoMoCo in the 1960s it was less than $15, nowadays it can only be based on what you represent to society. Unfortunately that means that some people are worth more to society dead than alive and we currently wouldn't admit that. When the country is run by level headed individuals and we embrace a Darwinian outlook, will the life of a convicted serial rapist be seen as less worthy than that of a nurse? I hope so. That time will come but in the meantime peoples' expectations of the NHS will drag us closer and closer to the brink of oblivion.

Just because it is medical doesn't make it health related.


----------



## lovemyTT (Mar 28, 2009)

drjam said:


> No.
> Sad though it may be for those involved, I'd rather see the money being spent on keeping people healthy and alive.


remind me, how much did George Best's liver transplant cost us the tax payer, everything from the operation to the drugs he had to keep taking to stay alive. Only for him to recover (ish) and start drinking all over again and then get convicted of drink driving. I personally do not want my money spent on people like him! let them kill themselves if thats what they want to do.
Very sad for those involved with fertility problems and yes the NHS should fund those unfortunate people!


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

lovemyTT said:


> drjam said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...


With all the money this legend made surely he would of had it private though not NHS?


----------



## lovemyTT (Mar 28, 2009)

leenx said:


> lovemyTT said:
> 
> 
> > drjam said:
> ...


He pi$$ed it all away, so the transplant was conducted at the Kings College in London on the NHS.....sickening isn't it!


----------



## leenx (Feb 8, 2010)

With all the money this legend made surely he would of had it private though not NHS?[/quote]

He pi$$ed it all away, so the transplant was conducted at the Kings College in London on the NHS.....sickening isn't it![/quote]

Yep! Unbelievable!


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Interesting. I remember a case a while ago on TV when they were looking at fertility treatments. Some couple had already had two children with IVF courtesy of the tax payer. Their remaining eggs were in storage and the couple had essentially forgotten about them UNTIL they got a letter reminding them that their storage expiry was coming up. Suddenly they were "desperate" to have another child. Well they already had two, so what more could a third possibly add to their lives?

It's quite a good example, of one thing that appears to be quite common... breeding becomes something of a crusade for these people as soon as they find out that they can't. It's like they're given a problem and it becomes a compulsion, irrespective of rationality. Should people be given treatment just because they've convinced themselves that they're "desperate" to breed?

And another one: if fertility treatment at the taxpayer's expense come with the same restrictions as adoption or fostering?


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

I'm with Sal on that one: not being able to conceive naturally is natures way of stemming over-population.
If some people/parents are so desperate to have children and can't have their own, it is better if they'd adopt. Now I know this is not all that easy but that's a different kettle of fish then.

Oh, and I'm also against gastric bands, viagra and other gadgets on the NHS. The money in the NHS pot should be used to help those that are really ill IMHO


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

lovemyTT said:


> drjam said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...


No idea how much it cost, do you? 
So the argument here is that if people are given a transplant and then proceed to do nothing to try to change the behaviour that caused it, they shouldn't get another one or other further treatment free? Yep, plenty of sympathy with that view. 
(On the other hand if the suggestion is that we should let people die because we disapprove of their lifestyle and shouldn't give them at least one chance to realise the gravity of their mistake and try to change, then I'd strongly disagree).

But I still don't agree the money saved should go on IVF. 
The long and the short of this is that there isn't unlimited money available for the NHS and it isn't going to get any cheaper (older population, more conditions treatable, new hi-tech equipment becoming available etc.). 
Money spent on IVF is money not available to spend on e.g. making new cancer treatments more quickly or widely available, improving hospitals, shortening the times people have to wait while in pain etc.


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

We are currently going through IVF as we speak and we are not eligible, to say this is gods way of slowing the poulation down is such a stupid comment I don't even want think about it. if your God exists which i doubt he would make all the scum bag benefit scrounging fucks infertile!!

Anyway, I already have 3 children with a women I was married to for 17 years, I had a vasectomy after the third one was born as I did not want any more, end of story.

We split up 5 years ago and have been with my girlfriend for 4 years, Talked it through and decided we would like a baby, girlfriend will make a great mum and didn't want her to never experience children because of my past.

Vasectomy reversal is not done on the NHS regardless so spent 2500 on a reversal, it failed.
As it was my choice to have a vasectomy which was the right desicion at that time i accepted it was my responsibility to pay for the reversal.

Ok, so we come to the IVF subject, we are ineligable for IVF on the NHS because I decided to have a vesectomy 14 years ago, my girlfriend has made no such decision and if punished due to a decision I made all those years ago.

Anyway, our first round of treatment is costing 7 grand and involves a needle going into my nuts, which I can't wait for btw.

MY big problem is that both of us have worked since we left school and paid roughly £150 a week for roughly 40 years and neither of us have taken a fucking penny from this country.

SO my problem is that a immagrant can come to this country, become a resident and have IVF on the NHS for free without having to pay a fucking penny into the system.

THAT IS MY BIG PROBLEM WITH OUR SYSTEM.

Sorry to rant but when you have to sit up endless nights with your partner you love, crying themselves to sleep because they are desperate to become a mum it hurts, god has fuck all to do with it.

I am lucky I have my three, but life is not always that simple.


----------



## Hev (Feb 26, 2005)

Infertility sucks. One of the toughest things to face is that fact that you are not pregnant when you desperately want to be. As a woman, you feel like a complete failure....like you are useless....your self-worth is at an all time low. The emotional stuff that comes with infertility bears down on your shoulders and becomes a constant burden in your life. Add to that in your daily life you see and hear parents that you just want to shake (putting it mildly!) and ask them if they really appreciate what they have.

The question of NHS funding, I think that if it is a last resort for couples, people should all be given the opportunity regardless of where they live.

Of those of you who have replied, have you kids? Think for a moment that they are not here......and I'm telling you that you will never become a father/mother because your body is f*****.....how do you feel?

Hev x


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

Hev said:


> Infertility sucks. One of the toughest things to face is that fact that you are not pregnant when you desperately want to be. As a woman, you feel like a complete failure....like you are useless....your self-worth is at an all time low. The emotional stuff that comes with infertility bears down on your shoulders and becomes a constant burden in your life. Add to that in your daily life you see and hear parents that you just want to shake (putting it mildly!) and ask them if they really appreciate what they have.
> 
> The question of NHS funding, I think that if it is a last resort for couples, people should all be given the opportunity regardless of where they live.
> 
> ...


Spot on Hev, very easy for people to have such a harsh opinion when they already have children, to put people like myself and G/f in the same bracket as benefit scroungers who have 5+ kids to milk the system is downright insulting.

I count myself lucky as we can afford to have a couple of rounds of IVF and have very helpful in laws, but others not so lucky.

And to say people get obsessed with having children is just bizzare, women do not have a button they can press to turn off emotions and wanting to become a mother.

Thanks to Hev for restoring my faith in the inteligence and compassion here!

Btw, I do not begrudge anyone NHS treatment regardless of how much tax I have paid over the years, regardless of weather people of fat, thin, wrong gender, alcoholics, drugs, we are all human and people have problems, what should we do??? let people die because they have a problem??? I am a very intollerent person but I hate to see anyone suffer regardless of there addictions etc, the NHS is a great institution that helps everyoneregardless of status.
The staff are great and we are very lucky in this country we just don't appreciate it because it has always been there.

steve


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

I know very little about IVF but I do share an experience with Skitty in that I too have had a vasectomy. As he says it is supposed to be reversible but I have no intention of doing that.

What I do know is that those who believe alcoholics, smokers and drug users should all be refused NHS treatment are wrong. All are addictions, addictions are illnesses and as with all illnesses some victims need professional help to get better or manage their illnesses. In reality what happens is they get ignored, blamed, scorned and frowned upon by those looking for scapegoats for failures in the system.

Now there are those who have no intention of sorting there problems out so perhaps a 'catch-all' system is not the best solution, but to just say outright that the fat, the impotent, the addicted and the childless have no right to help on the NHS is just plain wrong in my opinion.

Cheers

rich


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Hev said:


> when you *desperately* want to be pregnant.
> Hev x


Hi Heather,
you mentioned a key word there: desperately!

Being desperate churns out a lot of stress hormones, which the woman's body mistakes as a threat. Being under threat a woman will not conceive; it is an inbuilt response from hundreds of thousands of years ago and that's how nature protects a prospective mum and her new born. Women will only conceive when they feel safe/not desperate.

I know it from umpteen clients of mine as well as from my own family: my son's ex was desperate for a baby and eventually diagnosed with PCOS - Poly Cystic Ovary _Syndrom_. She was told by her GP that she would never have any children. I told her to relax because that when ever anything is called a "syndrom" the GP is usually at a loss as to what the real cause is [taking my coat all you doctors]. I told my son that his then partner can get pregnant and within a month of stopping "trying" for a baby she was pregnant!!!!! Not only that, she now has a second little boy as well (not from my son, mind).
So my advice to any woman _trying desperately_ is: stop trying, relax and let nature do what nature does


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

skitty said:


> We are currently going through IVF as we speak and we are not eligible, to say this is gods way of slowing the poulation down is such a stupid comment I don't even want think about it. if your God exists which i doubt he would make all the scum bag benefit scrounging fucks infertile!!
> 
> Anyway, I already have 3 children with a women I was married to for 17 years, I had a vasectomy after the third one was born as I did not want any more, end of story.
> 
> ...


I will probably get flamed massively for this. But I think in your position it's right that you wouldn't qualify for IVF. Though it has to be said, it doesn't look like you're complaining that you don't. I hope that you're successful, but in the same way that you accept that a vasectomy reversal would be at your cost, then I guess you have to accept that the IVF treatment should also be at your cost. That's not to say that I don't feel your pain.

It is an unfortunate side effect of life not going the way you always expect it to when one partner has children from a previous marriage and the other does not. It can cause problems like you're experiencing.

Where IVF (or any other type of fertility treatment) should be provided free is for those people that have tried for years and been unsuccesful. It's all very well people saying they should just adopt, but that's a very hard decision in itself. Without going in to too much detail, it's the route that my friends are now looking at, but I think she's more keen on that idea than he is.

I may be way off on this and I've not spoken to either of them about it, but my gut feeling is that the 'mothering' instinct is far stronger than the 'fathering' one when it comes to children that aren't biologically yours.

Where it seems massively unfair in their case, is that I know they'd both make fantastic parents. All of the kids that are in our social group gravitate towards them and are always excited when they know they're coming. When you see some of the parents about that knock kids out like there's no tomorrow and then treat them badly, it breaks your heart.

Unfortunately, it's such an emotional subject that it's hard to be truly objective.


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

Kell said:


> skitty said:
> 
> 
> > We are currently going through IVF as we speak and we are not eligible, to say this is gods way of slowing the poulation down is such a stupid comment I don't even want think about it. if your God exists which i doubt he would make all the scum bag benefit scrounging fucks infertile!!
> ...


Think you talk a lot of sense mate, I personally would not want to adopt but my g/f probably would, as you rightly point out, I made a decision 14 years ago which was the right one at the time, which I now have to pay for which again I have no problem doing, but ask my g/f the same question and she thinks she should be entitled to NHS IVF as she has never done anything wrong, difficult one, most of the IVF consultants think couples with no children in the current relationship should be entitled to one free IVF, which I agree with. Currently my girlfriend is being punished for something I did 14 years ago.
But I will continue regardless, may have a big debt at the end of it but will be worth it, she deserves it.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

A3DFU said:


> Being desperate churns out a lot of stress hormones, which the woman's body mistakes as a threat. Being under threat a woman will not conceive; it is an inbuilt response from hundreds of thousands years ago and that's how nature protects a prospective mum and her new born. Women will only conceive when they feel safe/not desperate.


That's pretty much what I was leaning towards in my last post. Once the crusade to get up the duff takes hold and people start fretting because they've not been lucky yet stress goes up and bingo, a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

So Skitty's circumstances are different to just being infertile, which is natural selection regardless. Is it up to the tax payer to let them have a child that is genetically theirs? I'm not sure it is. There are plenty of kids who need a good home. Speaking generally here, not specifically to Skitty, I wonder if people for whom having a child that is biologically theirs over just being a parent of a child (i.e. adopted/fostered) becomes a crusade are perhaps missing the point of being parent... it's not about whether the child is genetically theirs but surely about whether they are being a parent. In that case, biology shouldn't matter and the infertile have other good channels by which they can fulfill their "desperation" to raise a child.


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

ScoobyTT said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> > Being desperate churns out a lot of stress hormones, which the woman's body mistakes as a threat. Being under threat a woman will not conceive; it is an inbuilt response from hundreds of thousands years ago and that's how nature protects a prospective mum and her new born. Women will only conceive when they feel safe/not desperate.
> ...


Not sure mate what you mean by "natural selection", are you suggesting that it is gods will that some people are infertile???
because hate to burst your bubble but he/she/it does not exist...fact, so lets just say it is down to luck, some people are lucky some people are not, if your theory is that you are dealt your hand so deal with it with no help at all would mean people born deaf and blind should not get any help and remain blind and deaf, people born with a limb missing should remain limbless, should we tell a young person who is born with a deformity that you have been naturally selected to be deformed so live with it???? I am presuming you are a bloke, because we see things very differently to women, if there is any possibility they can have their own baby they will pursue it rather than adopt.

Interested to know if you have children and if not weather your other half would be happy to adopt instead of having her own child, if you said to my g/f that she has been dealt a natural selecttion hand and get over it and adopt she would probably punch you in the mouth lol.

I agree that getting "desperate" does not help, but women get to a certain age and start thinking biological clock is ticking and see friends having babies and feel they are running out of time, not a reason to go running to the IVF clinic but reality all the same for some.

It is not as black and white as just running to the doctor and booking your free IVF treatment.
I don't begrudge anyone anything, I hate drugs and smoking yet I still have compassion for people with problems, and who are we to judge others and deny life??? maybe we should leave it all up to god, as he created the earth a few thousand years ago in 6 days and had the 7th off, then stuck a couple on earth to populate it, good job Adam or Eve was not infertile as we would all be fucked!! Small discrepancy in that story is that dinosaurs were around millions of years before humans....FACT, so in fact Adam and Eve is fiction and chances are so is god and paul Daniels...AKA Jesus.

Getting off track so off now, No offence intended.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

skitty said:


> Not sure mate what you mean by "natural selection", are you suggesting that it is gods will that some people are infertile??? because hate to burst your bubble but he/she/it does not exist...fact,


No bubble to burst so you're way off playing the God card there dude.  I'm not necessarily saying it's "tough" luck if you're infertile. I think though, all posts considered, that i tend to fall on the side of "if you want it, pay for it". Or relax - you might just conceive if you stop fretting about your biological clock.


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Personally, I think you've shown not that great a grasp of the entire subject, and have concentrated on IVF itself, the cost, and justify all your points accordingly

Frankly, I'm glad the decisions about whether or not to fund individuals going through any kind of fertility assistance are in the hands of medical professionals, and not in the hands of people who perhaps read something once on the BBC or overheard it in the pub :roll:


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

ScoobyTT said:


> skitty said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure mate what you mean by "natural selection", are you suggesting that it is gods will that some people are infertile??? because hate to burst your bubble but he/she/it does not exist...fact,
> ...


Lol, I got a bit carried away with the God subject 

I completely understand what you are saying and mostly agree with paying for it.

No amount of relaxing is gonna regrow my tubes mate lol, the little suckers cannot get through, so feel for me when that big arsed needle is going into my tender nuts!! and I pay for that privelage :wink:

@Phobe, very good point mate, so easy to judge when not knowing all the facts, so much is wrong about this process, mostly about how we look after our own people and give strange priorities to non nationals!!! [smiley=argue.gif]


----------



## robp (Apr 14, 2010)

My sister has just had IUI on the NHS, and been successful with her first attempt. In her case, her partner was left infertile due to some issue at birth that was mis-handled by a combination of his mother and the NHS. So, in their case I think it was a good thing for them (they would struggle to afford treatment privately).

My wife and I are also having IUI at our own expense. We still have another week to find out if she is pregant yet, but completely understand the need to place restrictions on NHS availability. Luckily we already have a son, but both of us would love a brother or sister for him. And yes, we would consider adoption if there are no other options.

I suspect that assisted conception will only increase, as so many people put starting a family on hold while they promote their career.

Good luck to any of you going through the process right now, you have our understanding!


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Good luck to you both


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

phope said:


> Frankly, I'm glad the decisions about whether or not to fund individuals going through any kind of fertility assistance are in the hands of medical professionals, and not in the hands of people who perhaps read something once on the BBC or overheard it in the pub :roll:


ooooo! Get you! :lol: Perhaps you could inform us of your decision on the subject, from your own _extensive _knowledge?

Regardless, how about the case of the woman with two kids through fertility treatment who wanted a third. Isn't that just a bit greedy? :wink: Like it or not, NHS funding is tight and the medical professionals you refer to generally don't have their hands on the purse strings. I'm sure most people are aware that some drugs are unavailable or highly restricted due to their cost. Cost affects things that are life and death. The last time I checked, someone's desire to have kids wasn't quite that serious. :roll:


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

My wife and I do know a fair amount about the subject and processes, having experienced them at first hand, so I know exactly what it's like to be led through the process, and what a stressful experience it is.

You?... Thought not...

It might start again this year, but at this time, I've got my own health issues at the moment to worry about..._real_ illnesses apparently, and none of this wishy washy emotional crap :roll:


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

ScoobyTT said:


> phope said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I'm glad the decisions about whether or not to fund individuals going through any kind of fertility assistance are in the hands of medical professionals, and not in the hands of people who perhaps read something once on the BBC or overheard it in the pub :roll:
> ...


The trouble with this subject is that you have lots of different circumstances and you seem to be putting everyone in the same category, I agree if a couple have had two children and struggle to have a third it is not really acceptable they use the NHS for IVF, but wouldn't use the word greedy lol. People usually have a set amount of kids they desire, I would be more than delighted for one now and that will be me done, old, worn out and broke. [smiley=bigcry.gif]

And to YOU it isn't that serious , but to others it IS serious, not life or death (maybe life lol) but serious to some people, but as we humans only care about things that concern us and stuff everyone else.

Probably 50% of the population would not want to use NHS money pulling men out of fast cars when they drive like twats :roll:


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> Like it or not, NHS funding is tight and the medical professionals you refer to generally don't have their hands on the purse strings. I'm sure most people are aware that some drugs are unavailable or highly restricted due to their cost. Cost affects things that are life and death. The last time I checked, someone's desire to have kids wasn't quite that serious. :roll:


Are you for real? The teams that look after fertility are acutely aware of the funding across the NHS for all treatments, and that's precisely why there is a waiting list for any type of fertility assistance, as funding is very scarce for it. The same people that make the clinical decisions make the funding decisions about how to spend their budget too - they get allocated a budget, so they have to account for it.

This is why you get postcode "lotteries" and different policies across different NHS boards, but let's not let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

All applicants are carefully screened to make sure that if the NHS is going to help with any type of fertility assistance, that there is a good _clinical_ reason for being on the waiting list for whatever treatment, making sure that in the medical professional opinion, funding goes to the right applicants.

Ironic really, considering the topic, but you really are a prize cock.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Interesting though phope that you're the one resorting to basic insults so quickly.



skitty said:


> The trouble with this subject is that you have lots of different circumstances and you seem to be putting everyone in the same category,


On the contrary; I have already acknowledged the difference in your circumstances for example.



skitty said:


> I agree if a couple have had two children and struggle to have a third it is not really acceptable they use the NHS for IVF, but wouldn't use the word greedy lol.


Well that's just semantics, but you do agree. Just don't tell phope :wink:



skitty said:


> Probably 50% of the population would not want to use NHS money pulling men out of fast cars when they drive like twats :roll:


They probably wouldn't. Everyone has different ideas about how the pot should be spent and who is "worthy" and who isn't. Some people here have already expressed that alcoholics and smokers perhaps aren't deserving of treatment. Others disagree, and managed to do so without getting personal about it. Good for them.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

I fall within the camp that says, no it shouldn't be funded by the NHS. However, my position is a bit different from those arguments above.

If IVF cost, say, £50k I'd possibly have a different opinion. But, it doesn't. As Skitty has shown above, it costs less than £10k in the vast majority of cases - £7k in his case and as I understand it in may others often less. Sure, it invites the argument about whether I'm arguing that IVF should just be for the rich then because of course that's still a lot of money for many. So what about the people with lower incomes? Don't they deserve the same chances as those with more money?

But, doesn't raising children cost money too? In fact having a child is said to cost you about £12000 in the first year. My argument therefore is very simple. If you want IVF then spend 12 months saving up for it. If you can't afford that then can you afford to raise a child in the first place? And if not, then should you be having that child? Simply put, anyone who can actually afford to raise their own children standing on their own two feet and not relying on the state should, with a little patience and commitment, be able to afford their own IVF - therefore should the state pay for the IVF in the first place?

There are too many people having children that they can't afford as it is without the taxpayer spending money helping more do it. I congratulate Skitty in demonstrating his commitment by paying for his treatment and wish he and his partner every luck with it. But for me, no IVF on the NHS.


----------



## Rob Severn (Apr 30, 2011)

This probably won't win me many votes, there are too many people already, there shouldn't even be IVF or any kind of fertility treatment available whatsoever.
You want kids ? Adopt.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

i will take a diff approach from sccobs a tad harsh view. (lol a massive booste for me)
with the way the state of the country is and the nhs...........basic health worries and cures yup free if you have covered nhs payments. cant have kids? sorry but not my problem, and that isnt personal just practical. why should my bucks cover your ivf when i have arthritis that i will need it for. i am truly sorry you cannot conceive but that is your prob not mine


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

As I said earlier this is a very sensitive subject and people can get very emotional so I suggest closing this as I am in a good mood and very hard to understand unless you are going through it.
But fully understand why people think the way they do, Scooby is a lttle insensitive but I get what he is saying, i think.

Gazz we have lots in common Arthritis and moaning.

My Arthritis is down to too many years of football pain killing injections etc not old age like you :wink:


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Hey don't single me out, others have been more blunt. :roll:


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

ScoobyTT said:


> Hey don't single me out, others have been more blunt. :roll:


Your name is easy to remember  :roll:


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

On reflection, calling you a cock was harsh... I did say it was an emotive issue 

Apologies


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

phope said:


> On reflection, calling you a cock was harsh... I did say it was an emotive issue
> 
> Apologies


Scooby is a cock. That's why I love him. Please don't apologise... :lol: I know it sounds a bit naff given the content of this post but the world needs more cocks. :lol:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Not posted for a while but this drew me out.

I think in terms of NHS funding anything there will be those who say yes and those who say don't. Invariably there will be emotion involved. 40 **** a day cancer patients should not get any treatment, until it's your Dad. Alcoholics? Leave them, until it's your friend who just had a hard time and turned to drink. Leukemia, well that's fine, no-one's fault is it, spend away, but they are 85, oh, perhaps not, but she's your Gran. Ethics, and the unfortunate interdependence with NHS spending, is always a tough call. If we're talking in pure economics - unlimited demand, limited supply - then on top of that you throw in emotion - recipe for disaster.

I do know one thing, however. We have two sets of friends who can't conceive. One pair known here, one non TT fans (mad fools). All I can say is both of them would make truly wonderful parents and it is a crying shame they can't. As a father of 2 the love you get and give to your children is like no other.

Life is not simple, funding is not simple, ethics are not simple, opining on various competing needs is not simple.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for both of them. I'll always lend as much personal support as possible with out judging something that as I am not in their shoes I will never fully empathise with the emotions. Quite frankly whether the funding should be there I'm almost glad that's someone else's decision.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

John C

+1 agree wholeheartedly

YoungOldUn


----------



## skitty (Apr 1, 2011)

YoungOldUn said:


> John C
> 
> +1 agree wholeheartedly
> 
> YoungOldUn


Me too, if I was a bit more intelligent I would have said the same thing.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

ScoobyTT said:


> Hey don't single me out, others have been more blunt. :roll:


no one is blunter than you scoob, unless ive had a few that is 
to take it to stage 2, i would prefer adoption to ivf, but then i'm a fella without the impractical views of a woman. only sick kids gets too me badly [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------

