free IVF

I think three is about right. If the success rate is about 30%.

How many did she have, Annie? Apologies if you've said in the thread somewhere.
Its a terrible pity when someone so much wants children.

MissAdventure, I think three ,but clinics should stop ripping these couples off , I didn't want my daughter to have so many attempts but understood why she did . She has now accepted she will not have a child , took twenty years , she is not going into a poor me mode. She has lots of ground so is going to open an animal sanctuary . And is thinking of breeding goats, they have three dogs and three cats ! So she is not wallowing in self pity , I am so proud of her. Her faith saw her through the dark times

How many IVF treatments do you think is appropriate to be funded, Annie?
Is there ever a point when its time to call it a day?

Ilovecheese, you are so right, it is mentally painful, and how can some dismiss damaged falopian tubes yet accept damaged hips. Then there are the miscarriages, my daughter had several, the hardest to cope with was when she was carrying twins, she raced to the clinic, they confirmed a miscarriage but there was still one baby. Ten days later she miscarried the second baby. Yet she should accept it as it wasn't her god given right to have a child.

I agree with devongirl less money spent on IVF and keeping older people alive despite their having little or no quality of life. There is so much treatment available now that hard choices have to be made.

Infertility is as mentally painful as an athritic hip is physically painful. Both are medical conditions. if no one should feel entitled to have a child then no one should feel entitled to a hip replacement.

its a mine field out there with regards to funding on the NHS. We can't have everything that we want or need so how would we choose?
Maybe we should exclude recreational injuries, after all there are many sports that almost guarantee falls. No one actually has to go riding, hang gliding, mountaineering ect,etc.
Then what about self inflicted problems- smoking, drinking and eating.
If I carry on I can probably find a reason to treat nothing!
The NHF is like life, too many opinions, too many problems but too few resources.

Very true, MissAdventure

Well said nightowl

I watched a programme a while back about the process that is gone through to decide funding. The surgeon said that times have changed. There is now an expectation that people having loose skin after huge weight loss will be funded to have it removed, although it isn't life threatening. A girl with one breast which hadn't developed was looked at for funding. Years ago, people just accepted their lot. Not that I'm saying that is right at all. Its just a minefield.

Adoption of older children is a completely different endeavour from having your own child. Older children needing adoption are traumatised and can be very challenging. Adoptive parents need careful preparation and training, and then ongoing support which is not usually available.

Fostering is a different kettle of fish altogether and one aspect that is considered very thoroughly when preparing/ assessing potential foster caters is motivation and expectations. Those who have unresolved grief and longing for children they have been unable to have would be counselled out at a very early stage for their own sakes, as well as for the sake of children needing foster care.

If people want IVF I think they should have a right to at least 3 cycles on the NHS. Why should we expect people who can't conceive naturally to accept something different? How many of us who have been fortunate to have our own children have then adopted or fostered other children? Or is that seen as a second best option suitable only for childless people?

Yes, one of my nephews fosters six to twelve year olds, he has had a fire started in the middle of the night, his dog been kicked, China smashed, his car badly scratched , the children are deeply troubled children and there are many in care

There are also older children who need adoptive parents.

There are so few babies for adoption, and if a couple are fortunate and offered a baby they may have to wait a year before the adoption can proceed , this gives the birth mother time to change her mind. My daughter happens to live in a six benroomed five bsthroomed house plus two acre garden and a field. She was under pressure to foster three because she had the room , the mother was to have access , so my daughter was classed as a nanny really. And how does one bond with a tiny never knowing if someone will turn up and say the mother wants the child back,

I know it took a work colleague 10 years, Annie, with the most heartbreaking times where it almost happened, and they were let down, as it was changed at the last minute.

This is about adoption Missadventure , I just asked if those who say - adopt , have tried to

We're all going down our own roads though, Annie, which are individual to us. My daughter was premature: maybe she shouldn't have had money wasted on her? My mum died from smoking related issues, although she had given up 40 plus years ago..

Anyone who is so against free IVF and dismiss childlessness with - adopt , have been down that road ? I think not.

I agree, MissAdventure, although I would say keep people healthy til 70, say (if they die after that it will save on pensions - cynical, moi?)

Seriously though, I do think too much money is spent on keeping old people alive at all costs when a peaceful death rather than years of dementia/illness/disability is what lies ahead - and I include myself there.

Given the choice of Eglantine19 though, I would still prefer to cut back on IVF; we have a high enough birth rate already, and children already born who would love a caring home....

Neither, actually, from a purely practical point of view. Keeping the middle aged healthy would seem the best option..

So IVF or keeping old people going? Just asking

I suppose most surgery isn't life saving. We could all learn to live with badly broken limbs, if necessary. The money just isn't there for everything: it isn't a bottomless pit of cash.

Neither is the joint replacement treatment mentioned previously as a better way of using money.

Just to add to my OP: I have felt this way, riverwalk, since IVF was introduced, so it's not fair to call me "selfish and entitled" now that I am over 60.

I agree completely that, in an ideal world, the NHS would be able to fund everything; however, if financial constraints mean that money is used for either an additional round of IVF or a life-saving transplant, for example, I believe the money should go to the transplant. IVF is not a life-saving procedure per se.