winkie Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Just try and adopt one of these and see how far you get. Especially if you don't own a home or live in a major city ( to link back to the reason for this forum) and have to move every 6 months. I have tried. Having a child is not a right or an entitlement.... like being born beautiful, giving birth to a healthy child or a child of a certain sex, born wealthy or in a certain place at a certain time... Nobody is perfect as long as healthy we all have to work with and accept what we have been given,both in body and mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Infertility is a medical problem. People shouldn't have to pay for treatment. It can take more than one cycle of IVF to produce a child and it's expensive through private clinics in the UK. People often need other operations before they can start the IVF and more complicated, expensive procedures like ICSI. It's not terminal and its not trauma (in the physical heart attack sense)I am casual on top can I have a hair transplant please....Where does it stop ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olde guto Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I agree........anyway there are thousands of unwanted children that would love a loving family that would be prepared to help bring them up in a caring, stable, healthy, environment.... a real worthy future investment that would benefit all. Exactly, if there are children needing adoption in the area then IVF shouldn't be offered, in fact if the would-be parents fail the criteria to become adoptive parents then IVF shouldn't be offered. The ECHR might have a right to family life but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say you have a right to have children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bowman Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Plenty of people have medical problems that cause infertility. Cancer survivors for one. IVF would be part of the treatment not the sole treatment - Next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Canadian Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I agree........anyway there are thousands of unwanted children that would love a loving family that would be prepared to help bring them up in a caring, stable, healthy, environment.... a real worthy future investment that would benefit all. That's the view we took, never went down the IVF route, why pay £9k when there are kids who desperately need a good home and loving parents. Adoption's been great for us. It's the single best thing I've done in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLOW FLY Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 no, why? Was just thinking it would be pretty impressive if it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartimandua51 Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 IVF should not be offered on the NHS at all. Infertility is not an illness. People have no intrinsic right to have children. If they want them badly enough it is up to them to pay for them (I'm sure we could devise a student loan-type IVF loan system). The NHS should be reserved for people who are actually ill and need medical treatment. IVF isn't just for infertility. Three years ago my partner was diagnosed with Huntington's disease - none in family history, so no way we could have knowm. Now each of my three daughters has a 50% chance of delveloping this ghastly disease (think: a combination of motor neurone, Parkinsons, dementia and Alzheimers) and if affected a 50% chance of passing it on to any children - it's a dominant gene. In this case IVF eliminates affected embryos and saves the NHS c.£3K a week intensive care for years, as Huntinton's is a slow killer. Not worth it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 IVF isn't just for infertility. Three years ago my partner was diagnosed with Huntington's disease - none in family history, so no way we could have knowm. Now each of my three daughters has a 50% chance of delveloping this ghastly disease (think: a combination of motor neurone, Parkinsons, dementia and Alzheimers) and if affected a 50% chance of passing it on to any children - it's a dominant gene. In this case IVF eliminates affected embryos and saves the NHS c.£3K a week intensive care for years, as Huntinton's is a slow killer. Not worth it?? Well I'm not a doctor, but this sounds like a specific treatment in light of an existing condition. The underlying treatment is for a 'proper' illness. This sort of thing could be allowed just on a cost-benefit basis. It's just the 'standard' IVF that I was talking about - i.e. people with no illness whatsoever but they just want children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flopsy Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Well I'm not a doctor, but this sounds like a specific treatment in light of an existing condition. The underlying treatment is for a 'proper' illness. This sort of thing could be allowed just on a cost-benefit basis. It's just the 'standard' IVF that I was talking about - i.e. people with no illness whatsoever but they just want children. I think you will find that a lot of IVF has a reason or a "proper" illness. It could be scarred or missing Fallopian tubes or some other similar thing. The NHS doesn't look too closely though which means figures will not be accurate. The problem with your argument is that we don't know what causes infertility in some people and couples. That means that their "proper illness" is not been researched or discovered. It is easier for the NHS to pay for the treatment (i.e. IVF if needed) as the treatment would be the same regardless of the cause. We know very little about infertility and especially male infertility. When you make the judgement that there is a difference between IVF given for a "proper" illness and IVF given for people who "just want children" you forget that some of the "just want children" will never know why they could have haven them without IVF because medical science doesn't know enough about their specific medical condition. As an example I would use this as an example. Research being done at Liverpool Woman's Hospital on NK killer cell and activity causing recurrent miscarriage and implantation failure in IVF. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-206329/New-miscarriage-breakthrough.html These woman with recurrent miscarriages were frequently seen in IVF clinics and no one knew why they were having problems conceiving and / or recurrent miscarriages. Research is helping them now and a cause is being identified but before they were in the "unknown" and maybe in your books the "just want to have a baby" category. The point is we don't know why some couples need IVF to have a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.