New IVF tests

Looks interesting, I wonder if it will actually work though...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...le-months.html

Some heartbreaking comments though, if you're sensitive about infertility, don't read the comments.

My first thought regarding things like this is how much it will cost the NHS. Probably yet more money that the system cannot afford.

We are already over-populated as it is, there are hundreds of children needing good homes, we don't have an infinite amount of resources and we should really be trying to protect the lives we have, rather than produce yet more people.

Also, when people are being denied things such as possible live saving cancer treatment on the NHS (they may have never smoked etc in their lives either) I really do wonder if IVF should be provided on the NHS at all.

Yes, I feel sorry for people who cannot have children who want them, but that's just the way it is. We can't all have everything we want in life and we just have to deal with it.

Sorry if that sounds insensitive, but when people like my grandfather cannot get certain treatments for cancer to try and save his life - a man who has faught for our country worked and paid his taxes all his life - then you have to draw the line somewhere.

Nic, I do in part agree with you.
I don't agree with NHS money being spent on IVF, and this is from the aunt of twin IVF boys
There are such demands on our resources and so many deserving ill people.
Personally I would like to see our money spent on treating the youngsters with life threatening illnesses and for researching treatments for them.
I'm sorry for your Grandad, my SiL is being treated for Non Hodgkins Lymphoma, she is very ill but she is 80 and I would still rather the money was going to the under 50s, with so much of their life before them.

I couldn't have put it better myself Nic. I completely agree.

It is so sad for those who want kids that can't have them and it must be truly heartbreaking for them. IVF is a miracle for those people but IMHO there are many more things that the money could be spent on (like life threatening and terminal diseases), if people want to be financially responsible for a child for the rest of their lives (the kids life) then harsh as it may seem my opinion would be by all means offer IVF but privately (possibly even subsidised in some very rare cases) but not free on the NHS when the stretched budget that the NHS has could be made available to save or prolong life rather than create more lives.

[QUOTE=Westie_N;2376425
Also, when people are being denied things such as possible live saving cancer treatment on the NHS (they may have never smoked etc in their lives either) I really do wonder if IVF should be provided on the NHS at all.
[/QUOTE]

I was denied treatment on the NHS for cancer and had to pay £16,000 for the privilige of having it. (otherwise I wouldn't be here today)

But due to cancer treatment I am infertile.

I will be having IVF, and why shouldn't I be entitled to it on the NHS?
You don't get unlimited chances...I know with my local PCT you get 2 chances....anymore and you have to pay yourself, which we are willing to do.

I know you can adopt/foster, but thats not what I want - it's not for us.

I wouldn't expect anyone who hasn't lost a child or struggled to conceive to understand how wonderful a story this is and how much hope it brings to people going through a heartbreaking time, to become the parents they so long to be.

As for the cost, read the article. It will actually save money in the long run as it will increase the chances of success, therefore there will be less need for repeat treatments, some of which are funded in full and most of which still receive some NHS support.

There are many people who through no fault of their own are unable to conceive a child without help .
There are people who due to past illness often as a child require IVF if they are to have the chance of having a baby .
I don't think they should be denied .
The NHS wastes far more money on people who could but chose not to help themselves .
Drug addicts and alcoholics who in the end are unable to give up their habit but somewhere along the line they had a choice .
There are people who are very overweight resulting in health problems and chose to do nothing to try and help themselves .
There are people who have cancer or heart surgery and chose not to stop smoking .
The list is endless .

I think people who have infertility forced on them......ie like Hev, those who have had chemo should get some help from the NHS for a limited number of tries.

Those who naturally have problems should not be funded by the NHS in the current financial climate.

Mainly for the same reasons as Nic.

I think a lot of women leave it too late to start trying nowadays anyway, as women are more likely to have careers etc. Unfortunately mother nature often has a way of proving it's not always possible to 'have it all'

I remember when we were raising money for Hev's treatment, I was so furious because our local Bupa hospital is full of people having breast enlargements on the NHS. Not reconstruction due to cancer etc, just purely cosmetic.

I think the way the NHS sets out different pots of money for different things is wrong. The vital treatments should come first in a budget, those that will save lives. Then the non-essential treatments.

I went to a GP last year, not my normal one, only for cystitus, and she asked me if I wanted my boobs reduced on the NHS......blooming cheek.... as they were big enough for her to get funding for them!

Having said all that, I am very lucky to be very fertile.

I would not like to be the person who decides what treatments the NHS will offer and what they wont but I do know that with more people than ever are being treated and, in comparison, less people funding the NHS, the decisions are going to be getting tougher and tougher.