Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Having children - a right?

Recommended Posts

Medicos are currently contemplating refusing IVF treatment to smokers and obese applicants. :shock: Do folk have a "right" to have kids; or is it a non-priority for the NHS? :?:wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any right to children as such infact it's not a matter of rights but rather an act of nature, I'm not against medical intervention to assist the process, but on balance I wouldn't regard it as a priority. Indeed I've just be listening to a fertility expert saying prospective parents should consider the effect of the birthrate on......global warming.....might I suggest considering the effect on ones bank balance as well :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medicos are currently contemplating refusing IVF treatment to smokers and obese applicants. :shock: Do folk have a "right" to have kids; or is it a non-priority for the NHS? :?:wink:

 

Don't worry Obs the private medics will always treat them :roll:

 

In answer to your question though

 

.... yes I think that if you smoke you should be refused treatment until you quit for obvious reasons. Smoking when pregnant harms your baby and also reduces chances of getting pregnant in the first place. So seems daft to be on IVF if your chances of success are limited due to smoking.

 

..... refused for being obese? not sure about that one. Although 'real' obesity can again cause problems in pregnancy so I guess it really depends on what they class these days as being obese. Anything over a size 12 and above 9 stone I guess :roll:

 

But having said all that some obese smokers who get bladdered every night and even take drugs do 'naturally' have children (which may not be planned or wanted) so if they are allowed to have kids then those who desperately want a child and need a little medical help should be allowed to aswell.

 

How about that for contradicting my own comments and showing that I really don't have a clue :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just be listening to a fertility expert saying prospective parents should consider the effect of the birthrate on......global warming.....might I suggest considering the effect on ones bank balance as well :wink:

 

Global warming :?: Oooh just think, if everyone listened to the 'expert' and no-one had kids we wouldn't have to worry about global warming cos there'd be no-one here :lol: Don't experts make you laugh :lol:

 

As for effects on your bank balance, most definately. Strong warnings should be given out and placed in all family planning departments, doctors surgeries, hospitals, fertility clinics, work places etc etc...

 

Mine has just cost me over ?70 today day on 'essentials' which doesn't included yesterdays 'essentials' which cost me ?30... :shock:

 

Anyone need a teenager for chimney sweeping duties :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who would be more entitled to treatment? A bloke from a family living on benefits who has never worked and needs a hip replacement or a woman from a family who have all worked all their lives and wants to have a child by IVF?

 

Personally I would say the latter, but that is my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary folks: the purpose and point of the NHS is to cater for the medical NEEDS (not WANTS) of the community based on a system of national insurance. :? The principle, in order to sustain any confidence in the system, is that it should be free at the point of NEED, irrespective of the lifestyle of the patient. :shock: Because IF "lifestyles" become a qualifying factor; there is simply no end to it - "sorry Mr Miner but you did work down a pit for 40 years, breathing in all that coal dust, so your lung cancer is self inflicted therefore we can't treat you." :roll: Then there is the other issue: of "I WANT", "I WANT a baby; I WANT a nose job etc etc" - errm, is this a life saving provision? :? Errm, don't think so - so sorry you'll have to go private or adopt. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....and thereby perpetuating the theory that if you sit back and do bugger all, skive and scrounge off the state; the state will take care of you and give you everything you need. If you work and pay your taxes, you get nowt in return as a reward.

 

Want to have loads of kids on the dole? no problem sir, we will even give you the council house next door so you can expand into it

 

Most of the infertility and such problems are probably partly down to the workers having to work harder to pay for the feckless and all the stress that come with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the NHS is about needs, not wants. Nobody NEEDS a child by IVF, and the problems caused by IVF producing a disproportionate number of low birth weight multiple births place an un-necessary additional strain on NHS specialist baby care units.

 

The cost of going private for IVF is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of raising a child.

 

If people can't afford the former, they certainly can't afford the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inky, what you fail to take into account is wether the treatment works first time. It can take 5, 10, 20 times before it works and at a cost of 3 to 5 grand a time.

 

Try telling a doley scrounger that he can't have treatment for his cough because of his smoking rather than telling someone who pays into the system they can't have a kid. Or maybe filling the country with children from the families of the unemployed is a better prospect? After all, they are the only ones who seem to be able to afford to have kids these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that you're happy to see someone who needs an expensive, lifesaving drug turned down because someone else who wants a kid and doesn't want to adopt has blown through 50 to 100 grands worth of IVF treatment and there's no money left?

 

With limited resources, and they will always be limited, choices have to be made about priorities. To me, babies on demand comes after saving lives.

 

Anyway, with an average UK success rate of 28.2% for women under 35, (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/facts_and_figures.pdf) if it hasn't happened for a women after 3 or 4 courses of IVF then it almost certainly isn't going to. So 15 to 20 grand to find to fund it privately, less than the cost of a new car and, as I said, small beer compared to the cost of raising a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Inky, there's no comparison between the conflicting demands caused by want v need; I'm frankly really annoyed at learning of the sums involved for IVF - that we tax-payers are funding. :twisted::roll::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do, one 22 and one 7.... who is an IVF baby and financed by ourselves not the NHS and at a cost of several thousand pounds if you need to know.

 

However personally I don't think that MY hard earned tax should be used to prolong the life of a lung cancer sufferer who refuses to give up smoking or an alchoholic who wont stop drinking. That is their choice. I don't agree with giving free treatment to foreigners or to giving kids to queers but that seems to be just as much a priority for the NHS

 

Personally I would rather bring some happiness to a childless male/female couple than to waste it on those who (in my opinion) deserve it less

 

And Inky, you can't possibly comment unless you have kids so go and have a pint and don't let it worry you too much! however I'm sure that those kids of other people will enjoy paying for your treatment and pensions when they grow up and start paying taxes just as much as you enjoy paying for them now eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and Inky, where did you get the 100 grand figure for IVF treatment? Was that for just one couple or for lots?

 

Cos mine wasn't that much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis of your own thesis Baz; we can't rely on other folk's kids to pay for our old age - cos (in your words) they may become scroungers! :lol: As for being qualified to comment, it would seem a childless couple are more qualified than parents to be objective about this matter. :cry: I would think most folk with lung cancer or with liver disease would heed a Doctor's warning with regard to fags and booze; unless you were a famous footballer. :cry: The point is, the NHS (as it's core founding principle) was to be FREE at the point of NEED; without any lifestyle additions to save on Trust budgets. :shock: The addition of lifestyle qualifications to lifesaving treatment is the slippery slope to the end of the NHS, as one can easily build a case for exclusion - too fat, smoker, drinker, extreme sportsman, bad driver etc etc - it's a divisive road to take and would lead to treatment ONLY for those who could afford it- whatever their lifestyle - cos whilst Doctors might not condone smoking - if you've got the money they would jump on the shovel - so let's not associate this issue with medical ethics. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there have been lifestyle choice operations for decades. since the first sex change when a bloke decided it was "cruel" to deny him the treatment.

 

The NHS IS on a slippery slope at the moment, but partly because the rip off drug companies who inflate the prices.

 

Why should a drug be available in Africa for a fraction of the cost it is in the UK or USA? There are just too many "lifesaving" drugs coming to market these days but the NHS cannot pay for all the drugs for all the patients; there just isn't enough money coming from the taxpayer.

 

Why not let those who can afford the private schemes opt out of a small percentage of national insurance? that way they still pay for those less fortunate but have treatment themselves which doesn't burden the NHS.

 

.........and yes they may all become scroungers; so why not stop all the lifestyle dole payments and make the buggers get out and get a job and pay some tax like the rest of us have too??!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and Inky, where did you get the 100 grand figure for IVF treatment?

 

Inky, what you fail to take into account is wether the treatment works first time. It can take 5, 10, 20 times before it works and at a cost of 3 to 5 grand a time.

 

20 treatments @ ?3K = ?60K

20 treatments @ 5K = ?100K

 

I don't believe the numbers would be anything like that high, but they're your numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of a cop out reply but if you knew anything about IVF treatment you would know that those figures you are quoting would not be the costs per treatment. The drugs have one cost attached and the actual treatment side is another. Successful IVF treatment can produce many many embryos, and it isn't always multiple embryos that are implanted. That decision is made by the doctor who decides what the best chance is for a resulting birth.

 

Not all IVF births result in multiple births (putting a strain on the NHS) and if you were to see the photo board at the Womens Hospital in Liverpool, you will see very few.

 

The "extra" eggs created by IVF are frozen and used again if needed (reducing the needs for drugs as the embryos are already made)

 

Costs are dependant purely on drugs, doctor and hospital costs and how much it costs to get to and from the hospital. My little boy is effectively a Scouser as he was born in Liverpool Womens Hospital. Now I am not exactly happy about that bit, but hey I am sure I will get used to it in time!

 

It is also a well known fact that male fertility rates are dropping at an alarming rate and so when it becomes time for you to have kids and to start a family, you may find you need help yourself...... so tell me, what would you do if you can't have kids naturally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point behind the NHS was to provide health care to ALL, regardless of their status in life or indeed their lifestyle, and on that basis NI should be paid like income tax on the basis of one's ability to pay. :roll: Thus the current glass ceiling on payments should be scrapped, so the rich can pay more. :shock: The removal of all the "I want" treatments, like IVF, sex change ops, cosmetic surgery; would leave more funding available for the essential lifesaving "needs" of everyone. :wink: It's simply the application of priorities on the basis of common sense. :wink: As for the "drug companies" - perhaps there's a case there for Nationalisation?! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A bit of a cop out reply

 

You supplied those numbers in reply to my assertion that the cost of private IVF was small in comparison to the cost of raising a child. I don't think it's a cop out to quote them back to you.

 

so tell me, what would you do if you can't have kids naturally?

 

I can't. I live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is to decide, whose needs are more important than others?

 

Also in this day and age - I feel very badly for any child having to grow up in care rather than with two people that love him/her. We already have enough population - we need to help those we have already - or is that way to easy a thing to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...