Baby For Grandma?

At a time when the government is strapped for cash and the NHS virtually on its knees, NHS guidelines have today been published suggesting couples struggling to have a baby should get fertility treatment more quickly and even older women should gain access to IVF.

In other words, they want to increase the maximum age for IVF treatment from 39 to 42, and offer it to couples after two years of not being able to get pregnant rather than three years.

Isn't this just crazy? I feel for couples who can't get pregnant but do we really want more 40-somethings having IVF on the NHS? The chances of success are very slim, yet it costs the taxpayer about £3k per go.

Similarly, should couples be getting free IVF treatment after just two years of not getting pregnant? Surely if you're 25 you should at least have to give it until you're 30 before costing the NHS upto £9k.

What do you think? Am I being to harsh or is this another case of the government being too soft?

What you could do is attempt to inseminate yourself with the contents of a used condom like Liz Jones.

Something you were particularly sympathetic towards.

that would halt the need for them to raise the age here.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:What you could do is attempt to inseminate yourself with the contents of a used condom like Liz Jones.

Something you were particularly sympathetic towards.

that would halt the need for them to raise the age here.

It really is time the mods stepped in.

When i said Liz Jones was mad for doing that you called me a "dick" and were sympathetic towards her.

so surely you'd want to see more women given the opportunity to have treatment at an older age as this is exactly the problem she was facing.

People shouldn't get it for free.

If you can't afford a few grand for IVF how are you going to look after a child?

Hipster_Nebula wrote:When i said Liz Jones was mad for doing that you called me a "dick" and were sympathetic towards her.

so surely you'd want to see more women given the opportunity to have treatment at an older age as this is exactly the problem she was facing.

My point was about the burden on the NHS and the taxpayer. If people want to pay for IVF themselves I'm 100% behind that, and if they want to inseminate themselves with the contents of a used condom then that's upto them as well.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:People shouldn't get it for free.

If you can't afford a few grand for IVF how are you going to look after a child?

that's actually a good point. i'm all for older women getting ivf, but they should have to fund it themselves. as should younger women.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:When i said Liz Jones was mad for doing that you called me a "dick" and were sympathetic towards her.

so surely you'd want to see more women given the opportunity to have treatment at an older age as this is exactly the problem she was facing.

My point was about the burden on the NHS and the taxpayer. If people want to pay for IVF themselves I'm 100% behind that, and if they want to inseminate themselves with the contents of a used condom then that's upto them as well.

Fair enough I just assumed you'd have a different view on this, i was wrong.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Fair enough I just assumed you'd have a different view on this, i was wrong.

Why, because I'm a 32 year old single woman with no kids?

You've been 32 for about 5 years now.

To be fair it all depends upon the NHS Trust as each Trust have different rules and procedures for more or less everything. Therefore it becomes a postcode lottery, like most things in the NHS. If an NHS Trust can afford it, then why not - whereas bankrupt Bolton NHS Trust will create rules to minimise the numbers as much as possible.

One has to remember that 99% of the population pays into the National Insurance Scheme therefore the NHS has to cater for everyone, as much as possible!!!

bwfc71 wrote:

One has to remember that 99% of the population pays into the National Insurance Scheme therefore the NHS has to cater for everyone, as much as possible!!!

Yes, but it's not fair that some people can't get cancer drugs to keep them alive, while others are getting IVF which is a luxury rather than a necessity.

But thats the way teh NHS exists - there are some areas with high number of obese people and other areas where there is not. The Trust do with the money whats best for them.

Would it be right for a NHS Trust in an area of high numbers of lung cancer to concentrate more on obesity? That the choice each Trust has to makre and as such it does becomes a postcode lottery to what services the Trust may or may not specialise in.

bwfc71 wrote:But thats the way teh NHS exists - there are some areas with high number of obese people and other areas where there is not. The Trust do with the money whats best for them.

Would it be right for a NHS Trust in an area of high numbers of lung cancer to concentrate more on obesity? That the choice each Trust has to makre and as such it does becomes a postcode lottery to what services the Trust may or may not specialise in.

They should always focus on necessary treatment. No one will die because they don't have a child. Anyone with cancer should get treated before anyone who ate too many pies.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:But thats the way teh NHS exists - there are some areas with high number of obese people and other areas where there is not. The Trust do with the money whats best for them.

Would it be right for a NHS Trust in an area of high numbers of lung cancer to concentrate more on obesity? That the choice each Trust has to makre and as such it does becomes a postcode lottery to what services the Trust may or may not specialise in.

They should always focus on necessary treatment. No one will die because they don't have a child. Anyone with cancer should get treated before anyone who ate too many pies.

I can categorically say that anyone with the C are given the upmost, and appropriate treatetment as early as possible. Also do not forget that it is also down to the patient to report any abnormalities they find as soon as possible to get the treatment as soon as possible.

But don't forget that eating too much can actually cause cancer, same with drinking too much alcohol, smoking, etc etc etc - so if one can concentrate on giving out healthier lifestyle then those wanting cancer treatment in the end would, hopefully, fall

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Fair enough I just assumed you'd have a different view on this, i was wrong.

Why, because I'm a 32 year old single woman with no kids?

No, because in the past you seemed to indicate you had sympathy for any woman who is over 30 without a kid, because the "pressure" is immense.

And you were 28 3 days ago, and have been 32 since you were on Bolton Banter.

Please can you provide me with your miracle medication.

Other forms of state benefit are means tested so shouldn't access to IVF also be? And how do they ensure that women are trying hard enough to conceive before turning to the taxpayer? Is there a five bonks a day for 6 months criterion observed by a member of the Trust carrying a clipboard? Probably not.

wanderlust wrote:Other forms of state benefit are means tested so shouldn't access to IVF also be? And how do they ensure that women are trying hard enough to conceive before turning to the taxpayer? Is there a five bonks a day for 6 months criterion observed by a member of the Trust carrying a clipboard? Probably not.

I knew you'd bring sex into this. Bloody pervert.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:People shouldn't get it for free.

If you can't afford a few grand for IVF how are you going to look after a child?

This was brought up vaguely on another thread - I believe every woman has a right to at least one child, OK - all other avenues should be explored first, If all else fails they should get a limited about of IVF on the NHS - to at least give them a chance. after all, in most circumstances its not the woman or mans fault they are unable to conceive is it?

Saying 'if you cant afford it, fuck you' to them is like making somebody who has recently become paralyzed pay for their own wheelchair and house modifications - "sorry pal, but if you cant afford a wheelchair, you will have to crawl"

Everyone who has paid in to the pot, should be entitled to utilize the NHS - not to take the piss, but use it as they need.

Would you make somebody with a debilitating illness pay more NI as they use the services more? no.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Saying 'if you cant afford it, fuck you' to them is like making somebody who has recently become paralyzed pay for their own wheelchair and house modifications - "sorry pal, but if you cant afford a wheelchair, you will have to crawl"

Yeah, but being able to get about is a necessity, having a sprog isn't.