In an ideal world there would be funds for IVF, and all other conditions which cannot be classed as illnesses. As it is, there is not, and, as Nic points out, we are an over populated country.

The NHS is already heavily burdened and we frequently hear of very poorly folk who are being denied the drugs they need simply to survive. In my opinion, it is the sick who must be the priority.

So the NHS is solely there to keep people alive, not to help bring life into the world?

Hmmm, not sure I would ever agree with that. It certainly makes the over population argument void.

It is more that we are getting to be an aging population with more drawing from the NHS than contributing.

The NHS is in trouble with millions of pounds to be made in cuts, trusts are bankrupt, procedures are being cut, ordering is down to a bear minimum and cheap products are being used.

Something has got to give and unfortunately a lot of people feel that IVF is not a priority and having a child is not a right but a gift.

Haven't you noticed it helps bring babies into the world every day?

What it is not there to do is play god with taxpayers money.

Such an emotive subject, I agree, but like I and others have said, I don't believe IVF should be treated as a priority at all.

And don't get me started on drug addicts and alcoholics - no where did I say either of these should get priority either.

I agree with most of what Jen has said, although I do know many over 50s who still have many years ahead of them and do deserve to live beyond this age.

I, personally, couldn't take what I consider to be an unneccessary treatment out of NHS funds - it wouldn't feel morally right knowing that that money could've been used to save or enhance the lives of people who have illnesses through no fault of their own. I just couldn't do it.

My Aunt (my mothers twin) is a senior midwife. She has had several miscarriages and cannot conceive naturally, she is in her forties now. She could've went down the IVF route but decided not to and she also does not think it is a priority for the NHS. They are considering adoption. She works day in, day out, with extremely sick babies - and it is not their fault they are sick - more money should go on trying to save their lives, for example, than trying to produce more, IMO.

Hevvur you are the rare case I talk of in earlier post who I think should be entitled to some IVF and I really do not mean that to offend and "rare" is probably the wrong word as sadly cancer is rife in our current world. But IMO if you have undergone suggested medical treatment and due to that treatment become infertile then yes IMO you should be given help to have IVF.

Ity really is a subject that is close to the hearts of so many and the NHS is stretched to the limits my friend is an NHS midwife in Glasgow who every day helps new life survive that for me, in the majority of circumstances barring those I have mentioned, is what the NHS is about it is about providing reactive care not productive care (if that makes sense)

There are plenty people who are "junkies" alcoholics overweight etc who produce kids and then place a strain on the system because they can't properly look after the kids how many kids of alcoholics and drug addicts end up in care and recently in my home town the case of 6, yes SIX, children are being taken into care because both parents are obese and now so are the kids that is heartbreaking

Thatst sort of case also uses valuable resources but whats done is done and has to be dealt with. in the main I think IVF should be available but only to those who have undergone a procedure rendering them infertile or those who can and will contribute to cost. Each day young people die from disease and illness that could be cured if funding was available but its not and that is sad.

I struggle to prioritise my household budget so lord only knows how the managers prioritise the NHS budget especially with all the differing views.

So we're now saying people need to get cancer to get ivf to help them become parents?

You lot have a funny take on priorities.

And my 'gift' has been taken away from me....so because I've already had to fight for my life, I shouldn't be allowed a chance to bring another life into this world, and care for it?

I typed something but actually - I'm not going to bother because it's the same arguments that go round in circles.

You cannot ever understand the pain of fertility problems until you've been there - it's absolutely left me in shreds over the years and it's a miracle I'm still here to be honest - I came incredibly close to suicide last year over it all.

For what it's worth - I'm not entitled to ANYTHING from the NHS - so don't throw that in my face either - our PCT is one of the worst in terms of what they entitle the lucky few to.

The adoption argument's also incredibly insulting tbh - I looked into it - first line on the adoption info site "locally if you're not black or mixed race your chances are slim."

If you're lucky enough to have working innards - go away, reproduce at will, rejoice in your gift and how it makes you special compared to others... heck throw in some bashing childless women as well as worthless if you want (the best I got called was an evolutionary dead end - don't think I'll be introducing myself as that at dinner parties somehow) - but the pain if you're stuck with that burning urge to have children and a body that won't cooperate is utterly utterly hideous, mentally gruelling and you get blooming sick of the sex over the years as well.

Dizzi - I won't even pretend I understand your pain I have no idea . My counter point would be and this is not meant to cause any offence at all so please do not read it as that.

Sight is something most of us take for granted yet I have a relative with no sight he could have sight if he could afford the private op but he can't and has been blind (or dam near it) for 40 years ofhis 44 years life.

I do not think he is entitled to NHS help for an expensive treatment nor does he but if he had that treatment he could become a fully functioning member of society and god love him he tries his damdest but where we live jobs that he could do are thin on the ground (aren't they all!)

As I said at the start I don't mean his loss of sight is equal to or more than the loss of someones ability to have children but what I do wonder is where is the line drawn it has to be somewhere and for anyone affected it is awful but who is to say that line is right or wrong.