observer Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Seems they're looking to provide IVF treatment for over 40s women and for Gays and Lesbians. Is this "essential" NHS care in these times of austerity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Probably not but if it ticks the right boxes that is all that matters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 It's quite ridiculous for over 40's to have babies. The child could be orphaned at an early age. Is that right? I don't think so. And if they are not orphaned can an over 40 have what it takes to care for a child? by the time it is 15 and starts to be a real problem would a 55 - 65 year old mother be able to cope with it's demands? Imagine when it's out with it's mother and it meets a friend from school - "Is this your nanna?" Stop interfering with nature I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 You might be in with a shot then Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 i don't accept the "stop interfering with nature" line, that's what the medical profession spends it's time doing. However, I do not feel that IVF is a justifiable use of resources at any time, but even more so at a time of austerity- look after the lives already here, not spend time and money trying to create new ones. Yes, to be childless is a personal tragedy and may well be upsetting, but surely so is to go through the process without success. I cannot help to think that the level of distress caused to a couple being childless is higher than it would have been before the development of IVF because of the , sometimes false, hope offered by the treatment. Am I right in thinking that Warrington NHS does not offer IVF to anyone? (There's the added factor that a child born of IVF can call his dad a w****r and difficult for the parents to disagree ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Anyone who can afford to raise a child to the age of 18 or 21 (over £200,000 according to recent research!) can certainly afford to find a few thousand to pay for their own IVF treatment. If they really can't then they could always adopt. NHS resources should be spent on curing the sick and healing the injured - NEVER on vanity treatments like unnecessary cosmetic surgery, sex changes, gastric bands, and IVF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Ah well, inky, Boys will be girls and girls will want big boobs, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Completely agree with Nick, and mostly agree with inky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 It's quite ridiculous for over 40's to have babies. The child could be orphaned at an early age. Is that right? I don't think so. And if they are not orphaned can an over 40 have what it takes to care for a child? by the time it is 15 and starts to be a real problem would a 55 - 65 year old mother be able to cope with it's demands? Imagine when it's out with it's mother and it meets a friend from school - "Is this your nanna?" Stop interfering with nature I say. My mother was over 40 when she had both me and my brother back in the fifties, completely naturally! Back then you mostly did as you were told anyway! I agree that IVF should not be available to any of the groups mentioned, the over 40s because if IVF is having to be rationed because of budgets, it should go to those with the greatest chances of success, those much younger. The other groups, well, in my opinion, having children is not a right just because the technology is there and money should be spent on clinical needs, of which there are many not currently being fully funded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 It's quite ridiculous for over 40's to have babies. The child could be orphaned at an early age. What absolute nonsense..... My mum was 41 when she had me naturally..... she was 89 when she died in January so at 48 I am hardly a young orphan..... My first wife had our son at 20, but she died and left him without a mother at 22...... My great Uncle had his son at 42 and he was 101 when he died.... Death can come at any age. What we should be doing is stopping people having kids that can't afford them and rely on the state to fund their numerous offspring 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Well said Baz ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 ..... and stop subsidising "want", and concentrate on "need". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Yeah, them silly women with their wanting kids, it'd be cheaper for the NHS to buy 'em a nice little Yorkie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Yeah, them silly women with their wanting kids, it'd be cheaper for the NHS to buy 'em a nice little Yorkie. That has to rank as one of the best answers I have ever read!!! :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Even cheaper if someone just told 'em - " to get over it and move on"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Yeah, never mind their biological needs, eh? sigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Not "needs" - just "wants". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Yeah, never mind their biological needs, eh? sigh Nobody ever died of being childless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Agree Ink: believe this suggestion came from N.I.C.E, the organisation that frequently denies life saving new drugs to folk - think they need to sort out the difference between "want" and "need"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Not "needs" - just "wants". Well, you're always banging on about human nature and the survival instinct, do you not think procreation is more than a just a "want"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Nobody ever died of being childless. Maybe not, but then there's things like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/one-in-five-infertile-people-contemplates-suicide-1255731.html God forbid you should ever try to walk in someone else's shoes. Oh, hang on, I've just noticed that in an earlier post you lumped IVF in with "vanity" treatments, which makes you either a troll or a twunt. I know what my money's on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Well, since the proportion of people in the general population who suffer from depression and other forms of mental illness is reckoned to be 1 in 4 - http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/ Then those waiting for IVF who report "Depression, isolation and frustration" would appear to be MORE healthy that the general population. Of course the easiest way to remove the "Depression, isolation and frustration" from the process would be to remove all of the uncertainty of postcode lotteries etc - and simply withdraw it on the NHS altogether. Like I said earlier, if you can afford to raise a child then you can afford the relatively low cost of funding your own IVF. IVF costs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Right on Inky - the world's running on sentiment these days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Like I said earlier, if you can afford to raise a child then you can afford the relatively low cost of funding your own IVF. Inky, while I understand your sentiments, I have to take issue with your statement.... IVF treatment is not "relatively low cost" by any stretch of the imagination. Some couples have to have quite a few of those items on the list you refer to so it is not an either or, it is a that plus that scenario We funded quite a few IVF cycles in order to get our youngest son (I didn't qualify at that stage for free IVF as I had my oldest son from my first marriage from my wife who passed away.... they take that into account!) The cost was over £12,000 which if you think is low cost, you must be a rich man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Compared to the reckoned cost of over £200K to raise a child, £12,000 is pretty small beer by anyone's yardstick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.