Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Free IVF treatment ?

Recommended Posts

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? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :shock::D:D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!! :D :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not "needs" - just "wants". :roll:

 

 

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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

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...