Should IVF be offered for free on the NHS?

[Barrel of Fun]

Or the recommended three cycles?

Well?

 

[Bars Mar]

Once Again, I'm Trying Really Hard To Think Of Something Witty But The Best I Can Do Is A Play On Ian Duncan Smith's Initials.

And He's Intrinsically Unnfunny. I'm Off To Bed. A Bad Night For Bars, A Bad Night For The Albion And A Very Bad Night For NSC.

 

[steward 433]

Dunno on this one ? it's a very strong argument both ways

The NO vote would be A: cost B: why should the NHS play god C: adoption there are thousands of children awaiting adoption

The YES vote well i am lucky enough to have children of my own (even though i was told i couldn't) i couldn't imagine not having my own A: every couple should have the option of children of their own.

Fence for me

 

[Lady Whistledown]

What about Viagra?

Should that be given free too?

 

[Gritt23]

I just think that the NHS struggles enough to fund life-saving operations and vital treatments, and until the day arrives that no-one dies while waiting for an operation which is delayed due to a lack of funds, resources, doctors, equipment, beds ...... then we shouldn't be spending money on this.

I don't think it's easy to decide what the NHS does and doesn't spend money on, and where operations and treatments should sit in a priority list, but this is one of the easier decisions.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I would agree with that Gritty. Whilst I am not in a position to make a sound judgement as I have never tried to have children, I do not think everyone has an assured right to conceive and certainly the state should not have to fund it.

I think the estimated costs of private IVF is £2,500. Why would you be trying for children if you can't afford that, let alone raising a child. Obviously, some may not be able to afford children IF they have to spend that much on IVF.

It does seem a churlish waste of resources when there are many ailments that are restrictive, shortages of drugs (due to costs) etc. Obviously there are psychological ramifications of the inability to reproduce which play a part.

Only my opinion, of course.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

What about Viagra?

Should that be given free too?

Personally, I do not think so. But again, I have no need for viagra so I do not understand the psychological effects of the condition. I would not have thought that Viagra was that expensive, certainly as my many junk emails suggest, so I do not see why the state should have to bear the brunt of the costs.

 

[bhaexpress]

I just think that the NHS struggles enough to fund life-saving operations and vital treatments, and until the day arrives that no-one dies while waiting for an operation which is delayed due to a lack of funds, resources, doctors, equipment, beds ...... then we shouldn't be spending money on this.

I don't think it's easy to decide what the NHS does and doesn't spend money on, and where operations and treatments should sit in a priority list, but this is one of the easier decisions.

Believe me it wastes a lot of money too. Anyway, I would say maybe yes but, I would want and age limit on that (that woman in her late 50s or whatever springs to mind) and that would be pretty contentious in itself I reckon.

 

[algie]

I think the estimated costs of private IVF is £2,500. Why would you be trying for children if you can't afford that, let alone raising a child

What about women who get boob jobs done on the NHS?

If it is the only way a woman can conceive then surely you cannot deny her rights? After the first sucessfull one then perhaps they should cough up

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

I just think that the NHS struggles enough to fund life-saving operations and vital treatments, and until the day arrives that no-one dies while waiting for an operation which is delayed due to a lack of funds, resources, doctors, equipment, beds ...... then we shouldn't be spending money on this.

I don't think it's easy to decide what the NHS does and doesn't spend money on, and where operations and treatments should sit in a priority list, but this is one of the easier decisions.

only an easy decision if you are fertile and in a position to conceive naturally.....

why should the NHS fund treatment for smokers, drinkers, sports injuries etc, etc....you simply can't say that because some people are waiting for vital treatment we should not help the thousands of couples who are desperate to have a family.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Believe me it wastes a lot of money too. Anyway, I would say maybe yes but, I would want and age limit on that (that woman in her late 50s or whatever springs to mind) and that would be pretty contentious in itself I reckon.

'wastes' money??

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

I think the estimated costs of private IVF is £2,500. Why would you be trying for children if you can't afford that, let alone raising a child

What about women who get boob jobs done on the NHS?

If it is the only way a woman can conceive then surely you cannot deny her rights? After the first sucessfull one then perhaps they should cough up

which is exactly the case....you get one 'go' (maximum) on the NHS and then after that, you have to fund it yourself.

 

[mr sheen]

Surely the whole concept of evolution is that it's survival of the fttest. Those who are seedless or eggless are clearly unable to breed because they are of inherently poor stock or have some sort of genetic failing. They should therefore not be allowed to have second rate children funded by my taxes.

 

[REDLAND]

I think the estimated costs of private IVF is £2,500. Why would you be trying for children if you can't afford that, let alone raising a child

I think if you double that your somewhere nearer the mark

and IVF is offered free on the NHS in Brighton you are allowed one free cycle after you have done the IUI program with no luck !!!

 

[nlf]

Dunno on this one ? it's a very strong argument both ways

The NO vote would be A: cost B: why should the NHS play god C: adoption there are thousands of children awaiting adoption

The YES vote well i am lucky enough to have children of my own (even though i was told i couldn't) i couldn't imagine not having my own A: every couple should have the option of children of their own.

Fence for me

Totally agree on this cant really decide its not life saving and there are many children in need of a home but cant imagine my life without our litlun, not sure which way to vote here

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Surely the whole concept of evolution is that it's survival of the fttest. Those who are seedless or eggless are clearly unable to breed because they are of inherently poor stock or have some sort of genetic failing. They should therefore not be allowed to have second rate children funded by my taxes.

Is a valid point! Nature is being continually undermined by medical advances. All these advances aimed at keeping people alive longer contradict the essence of evolution and survival of the fittest. Doctors and medical researchers really are playing God.

 

[User removed 4]

Surely the whole concept of evolution is that it's survival of the fttest. Those who are seedless or eggless are clearly unable to breed because they are of inherently poor stock or have some sort of genetic failing. They should therefore not be allowed to have second rate children funded by my taxes.

you complete knob

 

[Curious Orange]

There is no right to have children, only a desire to do so. Should the NHS be helping people with their desires? The short answer is no.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

]I think the estimated costs of private IVF is £2,500. Why would you be trying for children if you can't afford that, let alone raising a child…

What about women who get boob jobs done on the NHS?

If it is the only way a woman can conceive then surely you cannot deny her rights? After the first sucessfull one then perhaps they should cough up

Sorry, I missed this as I didn’t realise you were quoting me.

I personally think that boob jobs on the NHS are an absolute farce. Whilst I can understand if there is an inherent health risk or they need to be rebuilt after surgery etc. I do not think that the state should pay for someone to have breast surgery, simply because the want bigger boobs. I have always been taught to work hard and save up for something that I feel I want/need. A lot of trusts offer one IVF course and then they are on their own after that, but there is a recommendation that three should be available.

Do people have the right to bear children if they can’t physically do so? I don’t think I am proposing that they should be denied the right, but think that they should pay for the treatment.

Of course there are a whole host of surgeries/procedures that are provided for free, when the money could be better spent elsewhere. It was mentioned in the news recently and I thought I would test the water and see what the general consensus was.

 

[mr sheen]

you complete knob

another debate is whether being a jaffa makes you less of a man. Maybe you could contribute to that one, as you seem unable to add anything to this one?