free IVF

Round here it's 1 free attempt if all your ducks are in place (as it were). The (36 year old) girl who does my feet is hoping to be allowed a 'go' but she has endometriosis and the treatment has left her hormones all over the place and she isn't allowed a try unless her blood tests are favourable.

I'm not sure about IVF without background checks!! She has only been with this chap a while and he just wasn't quick enough to escape. I can't see the relationship lasting and I feel she is using him as a means to an end. So I tend to agree with you.

Devongirl I think you are right, imo, as sad as it is I don't think everyone can expect to bear their own child if it's not been possible naturally We all have some things in life we cant have or can't do ... I think it is very fair to give people one round at IVF free but after that they have to fund themselves and of course that will be very very hard on low income couples but life is never fair and the NHS should cut out a lot of non medical treatments
They are always children needing homes

My head agrees with some of what you say but my heart says differently because a young family member is now expecting IVF twins so her now only child also born via IVF, doesn't remain an only child forever. It's a difficult dilemma.

Is being an only child a medical issue? Is there something wrong with being an only child? I never knew[

As a mother of a woman who had one free attempt then paid for fourteen over a twenty year period I think it's so easy for those with children to say - there are always children who need homes / I don't think everyone can expect to bear their own child,

They do not expect , they hope,pray and long for a child

Yes, anniebach they do.

I'm with Anniebach - I think unless you have faced childlessness it is easy to say - it's 3 rounds I expect because each IVF treatment has a 30% chance of working - I do think it should go on how long couples have tried and been together - of course adoption is a route, but I think many couples would love the joy of a life they have created together.
The government funds many things that needs to be overhauled.

I understand completely the heartbreak of being childless but I still hold very strong views that we can't have everything we want it is not a God given right to be blessed with a child and if God doesn't have that planned for you then that's how it must be and you find a way to live with it Love doesn't only have to be for your blood
It is only in recent years that IVF has been possible every generation before has had to learn how to live with what they have been given We are incredibly lucky to now have this medical opportunity and the question that was asked was should it be free my answer was not that it shouldn't be possible but that you should expect to pay for this huge opportunity and getting one free chance is a HUGE priveledge

Have to agree with Bluebell on this one. After all people are being refused lifesaving drugs because of cost.

I can;t give an 'informed' opinion on this - no idea what the relative costs are and as everything comes down to money these days in the NHS, it may seems to be 'too expensive' in the eyes of many.

From my feint recollection of documentaries about IVF, I seem to recall it is a very 'tricky' science with a fairly low success rate, so in this context '3 tries' does not seem unreasonable.

Head v heart argument indeed. For me heart wins.

IVF is still relatively new in terms of long term understanding of its impact on the woman and any children born. It isn't an easy procedure for the woman and has an impact on the couple's relationship but, so does childlessness. I'm with Imperfect on this one, my heart tells me three goes doesn't seem unreasonable. It's expensive but so are many other treatments. The science will presumably be improving all the time so in the longer term it may pose less health risks and more certainty about conception.

I have my hard hat on and I am crouching behind the sofa but I am weighing up how many hip and knee replacements could be carried out instead of 3 free IVFs or more.

I think it should be strictly monitored, 1 free 'go', then you're on your own.

Eglantine I'm with you on this. my GS is an only child, my DD and husband decided they couldn't afford more as have a few of their friends. This is not so they can have nice holidays etc. They are both on minimum wage and find it hard to make ends meet.
They haven't gone into decline and DGS seems happy although my mum seems to think only children are the spawn of the devil.?
Tanith didn't say if her relative paid for her treatment , she may have done.
Has anyone told prospective parents that affording IVF is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to affording a child?

I've divided here because with my head I think there are too many people in the world anyway and we should be trying to reduce the world population not increase it. But having experienced infertility in the family I know the heartbreak it causes.
But if it's down to money and the will of God, should we be repairing and maintaining old, worn out bodies? (self included!)

And recovery from any illness is not a god given right ,

My daughter never thought having a baby was a God given right

I'm not sure where God comes into it unless like Bluebelle we think that he plans infertility for some people. Surely it's a medical problem like any other medical problem. If there has to be a financial choice should we give life or sustain old, worn out life?
Did your daughter have a baby, Annie?

It's not free IVF - the couples would have paid their taxes like everyone else. I think three attempts is fair.

It is a medical problem, in that there is a physical bodily reason for the infertility, because the vast majority of humans/animals are able to procreate without assistance.

As for 'one go then you're on your own' that sounds very harsh. Much of the NHS budget we are told is spent on problems caused by obesity e.g. Type 2 diabetes, cardiac & joint problems, etc. These patients, the vast majority of whom could improve their own health with effort, are not rationed, indeed changes are made to accommodate their needs, such as bigger and wider ambulances, theatre beds and wheelchairs.

Those who go deaf in later life are rightly given hearing aids - you can live a good life being deaf and being older you will have had a good share over the years of NHS resources but I don't see anyone turning things down because we're in 'straightened times'.

Nowt so selfish and entitled as the over-60s.

For some three years back in the 1960's I thought that my hubbie and me would never be able to have a child. Hubbie told so by a Doctor. Adoption would also have been probably out of the question due to hubbie's medical condition. Although so many years and five (now grown up children) later, I can still remember the total heartbreak and feeling of uselessness that I had at that time. Nothing could stop me thinking about having a baby, particularly as more and more of my friends, etc became pregnant. I would cross over a busy main road to avoid walking past a shop selling prams etc.
I was fortunate, the Doctor was wrong and hubbie was perfectly capable of fathering children and did so. We also fostered and although we loved our long-term foster children and they became as our own, not sure if we could have done this without also having our own children.
Do not think that the NHS should have to choose between IVF, drugs, operations, but should be funded adequately and the current privatisation (and profit that goes with it) be stopped.
Yes, people asking for IVF should undergo both medical tests to ensure they are suitable and also need to show a long-term relationship with each other. But three attempts is not all that many and should continue

Good post riverwalk,

Seems hearing aids, hip replacements etc are god given rights as are gastric band ops

Isn't sisterhood great !

Gastric band surgery isn't necessarily given freely on the nhs.

Franbern, I am so glad you were able to have children . My daughter is top of the list for choice of godmother. Adoption is a nightmare now, and little is said of the number of failed adoptions..

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.