Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 23rd November 2009 Change Date

Anguish of couples waiting 3 years for IVF

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
07 May 2007
COUPLES are being forced to wait up to three years for fertility treatment in the Lothians.
New figures show the wait for IVF treatment has got even worse since 2005, when an average wait of 24 months was branded "unacceptable" by health chiefs.

At that time, a change in guidelines which meant many more couples were eligible for treatment, as well as well as a national shortage of sperm and egg donations, was blamed for the delays.

A recent funding boost means more people than ever are being given IVF treatment at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary but the number of couples on the waiting list has also increased, to 460.

Campaigners today demanded measures to end the "postcode lottery" that meant Lothians patients were waiting so long - waiting times in Glasgow were just seven months in 2005.

Sheena Young, head of business development for Infertility Network UK, said: "The only thing worse than finding out you need fertility treatment is finding out that you will have to wait years to receive it. One in six couples seek specialist treatment for fertility problems and the impact of infertility can be devastating.

"However, excellent results can be achieved in treating infertility if patients are rapidly investigated and referred for the appropriate treatment and patients must be given the chance to access this treatment without having to wait, in some cases up to three years."

Long waits for treatment could ruin some women's chances of ever having a child, as the likelihood of conceiving drops as people get older.

The Scottish Executive said it will analyse the reasons for differences in waiting times across the country. Its recent review of infertility services did not introduce a national waiting times target, as many hoped it would.

Dr David Farquharson, NHS Lothian's clinical director for women and reproductive services, said: "We are looking at ways of reorganising the service so that we can offer first appointments for people more swiftly. An extra investment of £170,000 was made into the service in 2005/06, which allowed us to increase the number of patients we could assist.

"This resulted in a reduction of waiting times, at one stage to 19 months. However, rather than have to disappoint patients, at present we are saying to potential recipients of IVF treatment that there could be a wait of up to three years before they begin the first cycle of treatment."

IVF is a technique in which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the woman's womb.

In 2002/03, 135 Lothian couples received IVF treatment, dropping to 119 in 2004/05, then rising to 190 in 2005/06 - although some cycles may have been cancelled partway through for medical reasons. The figures include fresh and frozen cycles, oncology patients and donor recipients.

A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said: "Our interim response to the review of infertility services in Scotland recommended widening access to NHS-funded infertility treatment by raising the upper age limit for treatment from 38 to 40.

"We also recommended to NHS Boards that the upper age limit of 40 should be scrapped for replacement of embryos frozen before that age. There is no waiting times target for infertility treatment. We will be undertaking further work with NHS Boards and stakeholders to examine the reasons for differences in waiting times."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 May 2007 12:44 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: IVF treatment
 
1

MoragtheToerag,

Leith 07/05/2007 11:18:53

Expectant mothers in the Lothians already don't get the recommended number of scans in pregnancy because of lack of funds.

Let's face it: the NHS is already struggling to cope with taking care of BASIC healthcare.

There just aren't the funds there to make expensive inferility treatments a priority.

2

Mel,

07/05/2007 11:35:20

i totally agree with #1's comment there is not enough funds for general care in the NHS to make fertility treatment a priority. my heart goes out to those who are on the waiting list but some other treatments should take priority over IVF.

3

Just passing through,

07/05/2007 11:39:11

No one has the right to children.

4

alex paterson,

embra 07/05/2007 11:41:49

The system works well enough,Just let mothers have there babies naturally,After all it did in there mothers time.

5

Jock MacSprog,

07/05/2007 11:55:19

this is a lifestyle not a health issue. These woman will not die if they dont have babies. Its too bad but there are too many legit health issues going waiting. THe NHS is not a luxury service it is a basic healthcare system. If it is so important to them they can go private, and before the complain about being too poor to do that, then how will they raise a child if they are that skint ? Also all these "poor" people alway seem to have enough dosh to go to the algarve, etc on their chavvy hols. Having a baby is not a right.

6

McMicrogal,

07/05/2007 11:58:27

Painful though it might be, fertility treatment is not life essential, along with nose jobs, boob jobs and gender realignment. We have to cut our cloth to suit our budget and in hard times it is the luxuries and non essentials that go first.

If more men were willing to be tested to see where the infertility lies (I know of many who refuse on religious and pride grounds) then many women would not go through this expensive and invasive procedure when the attempt is futile anyway because they are not the problem.

7

McMicrogal,

07/05/2007 12:00:09

Also encourage social services to be a bit more open minded about where they place children for adoption - there are loads of kids out there in need of love that are not placed because to goody two shoes social workers cannot find the "perfect fit" family for them.

8

weemissie,

07/05/2007 12:26:31

How can you possibly compare the mental and sometimes physical anguish caused to people who cannot conceive naturally to people who have cosmetic surgery. The burden this can place on a happy couple and the trauma it leaves can be unbearable I agree that no-one has the automatic right to bear children, but I also feel that in a government funded health care systems, where alcoholics get liver transplants, smokers with lung cancer receive treatment and people with drug addictions are given medication to help them overcome their difficulties, then a young couple should be able to receive the medical care they need.

It’s all very well saying let it happen as it did in our mothers time however health care has advanced do these people not have a right to use a healthcare systems that, as tax paying citizens they help pay for?

While we are going back to our mother’s times, why don’t we stop immunising children, performing heart transplants and giving people chemo for cancer, after all we didn’t have these in our grandparents times and they did all right didn’t they!.

Young woman with certain problems such as endemtriosis and PCOS can actually receive substantial health benefits after having a child, their symptoms can drastically improve so there are physical as well as mental needs here that can be addressed. IVF isn’t an easy solution it is tough mentally and physically, it takes a toll on a couple relationship and physical and mental wellbeing it is not something anyone goes into lightly, it is usually a last resort for the desperate.

People waiting for infertility treatment are already made to feel unimportant and scrounging as it is, without people telling them to suck it up and get on with it. Unless you have been in the situation with someone sitting opposite you telling you that you will never be able to hold your own child in your arms, that you will never hear someone climb in your lap and say I love you mum, that you will never

9

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 12:27:37

IVF should not and never be on the NHS -- what a disgustingly terminally ill age we live in.

We have to stop this fiendish waste of resources in the NHS and get NHS spending back under control. The vast majority of the epically gargantuan amount of money us taxpayers give the NHS never sees the front line because of time wasters, middle mangement ranks and 'treatments' like this ....

Get back to delivering fundmentally excellent basic services - not this PC claptrap!

10

Shug,

Far away 07/05/2007 12:56:08

There are already far too many of us on this planet and it is ridiculous to spend valuable resources helping people who cannot have babies naturally. I think it's called natural selection!

11

Zoobee,

edinburgh 07/05/2007 12:56:56

I agree with most of the comments here - having a child is not a right. It is a desirable part of many peoples lives but it isn't life threatening if you don't have one.

If you want a child to help nurture and develop a young person into an adult then adopt - too many people are stuck on the fact they want their genetic line to continue. The believes and attitudes you teach your children are much more important than the bloodline.

12

Sarcasm,

07/05/2007 13:10:15

waiting times in Glasgow were just seven months in 2005.

Quantity, not quality then.

13

Squishy,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 13:16:04

Well saying most of you who have already posted havent got the faintest clue re IVF.
My husband and I DO have the "right" to become parents. And thanks to the lovely people at Edinburgh, that 9 year dream will be a reality later this year.

I cant beive that in this day and age, some people can be so narrow minded.

I do agree that its a massive drain on the health system, but as I am in my late 30s, hubby early 40s and we have both paid our stamp for a collective of about 40 years..................I think we are entitled to having had our IVF.

14

JG,

Fife 07/05/2007 13:19:02

#8 weemissie
While I'm pleased for you and your family, it is not a "right" for someone to have a child - or lots of other things come to think of it, in the "I want, must have" society we live in. I'm sure not being able to have a baby must be distressing but it is not life-threathening - nor are the costmetic surgeries you mentioned - and should not be funded on the NHS. How do you know that every IVF treatment isn't paid for at the cost of giving treatment to a father of three with a serious heart condition? The public purse is finite and should be used to cure ill people, not permit someone's preferred lifestyle.

15

Zoobee,

edinburgh 07/05/2007 13:42:13

#13 - the national health service in this country is there on a need basis rather than the 'we've paid so were taking' system.

I think money should be spent on people who are ill. My father paid his stamp for over 40 years, when he was diagnosed with bowel cancer he received treatment but unfortunately it wasn't enough and he died.

Money should be spent on helping those people who are alive to stay alive not wasted on people who want to continue their blood line.

16

JJ52,

07/05/2007 14:16:46

13# You do not have a RIGHT! At your age haveing a child is a recipe for disaster. Couples are at the correct age in their late teens to early twenties. How many getting IVF will then use the benefit system to raise their child? The NHS should be used for the care and cure ( if poss) of ill people.

17

SOLACE ONE,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 14:41:08

Sorry but I'm a little sick of the female urge to be parent.

If they were serious about being a PARENT with everything that involves they would look at adopting a child.

But these women aren't really interested in loving and nurturing a child they want a BABY.

REPEAT.... A BABY.

A BABY that they can dress up and take to the Gap.
In my professional capacity I've seen it hundreds of times, they lose interest about 22month stage, it's sickening.

They haven't a clue about the insanely deep commitment it is to be a parent. It's a LIFETIME COMMITMENT, they can't see past the baby stage.

They have an urge that becomes an obssession and obssessions are rarely healthy.

I'd be horrified to hear myself say this 5 years ago but I now feel if you cant conceive then it's either meant to be or nature has selcted your genes to go no further.


Sorry I know I'm not gonna win hearts and minds here but if you'd seen what I've seen in my job it would alter your perspective quite a bit.

18

littleredhen,

midlothian 07/05/2007 14:42:51

i agree this is a difficult subject and people feel that those who cannot have children for whatever reasons do not deserve to have treatment on the NHS - my concern for the comments posted are this - do we go further and not treat people who smoke or drink for example and have therefore contributed to their ill health - or is that different.

19

Androsthenes,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 14:45:31

Well done Squishy!!!
Having babies is great -I hope you get the chance at another.
Good Luck!!!

20

Edinburgh Wolves,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 14:58:43

Every time the General Public gets a say over IVF treatment in comment columns it is always the same self centred hypocritical rubbish spouted "You don't have a right to a child" , "There's thousands of children out there needing adoption", "Never had IVF in my parents day". "Some else should have that money to stay alive".

Yet in every case of a couple needing IVF.... suddenly all those positions change over night when it's someone you know who is unable to conceive naturally suddenly it's un-fair and "how dare those smokers demand cancer treatment".

First of all no-one is saying you have "right to child" but it is the biological imperitive of the species to have children. Therefore when it's not working naturally it means by definition something is wrong biologically - and that means it is an illness and thus the NHS should pay for it. This isn't self inflicted conditions here, it isn't the alocholic who needs a liver or the smoker with lung cancer or the drug addict with the overdose. Where prey tell is the line drawn here?

If a woman is unable to conceve naturally because of an injury caused by a drunk driver should she be allowed to have IVF, after all it's not her fault, it's not even natures way. Should the drunk driver be allowed to have their injuries tended to?

You want to start rationalising healthcare fine, you can do that, but there's a cost here which is more than just IVF.

Also it is often the people who could have adopted but chose to have their own children who are the first to say "There's all these unwanted/orphaned children out there you childless couples should take them". Why is that rational plan? Why do those couples get to have their own children and then selfishly tell those without to go and adopt (a complex and difficult process at the best of times)? Would these parents have even considered taking in the orphaned children BEFORE they d

21

AD,

rainy Livingston 07/05/2007 15:01:23

Whilst I hear the arguments - and most certainly sympathise - about people with cancer etc not getting good enough treatment perhaps this has more to do with the slap-shod way the NHS is run and the fact that there isn't enough money going into it. There is certainly more right to couples having this procedure carried out on the NHS than there is for the likes of boob jobs - which do get done on the NHS sometimes.

Being a parent is the best, most precious thing in the world and I would hate to deny people that. Besides - if we were to deny these people IVF the incidence of depressions, suicides etc would guaranteeably rocket.

All the best to squishy - enjoy every single precious moment, make the most of it because they really do grow up way too fast!

:o)

22

Edinburgh Wolves,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 15:11:42

#21 Solace One,

Thanks for making me laugh. You must have the worst job in the world!

I'm sure there's not a man out there in the world who wants a child. No it's all a "Female urge"

And of course all IVF couples only want a baby for about 22 months which they'll happily take back to the doctors to get a refund/replacement.

Don't be so utterly ridiculous.

Truth be told I know of many parents who desperately want to see past the baby stage, but their lives are consumed with the nappy changing right now... they can't wait to the point they can start teaching their kids to play music or sports or take them somewhere on holiday that will expand their mind.

If your job is so bad and has influenced you this much into such terrible thoughts I suggest a career change.

23

JG,

Fife 07/05/2007 15:16:46

#19 BoosterGold
Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what some of those people who are unable to conceive naturally are saying. Of course it is sad when couples find themselves in that situation, but it is not a life threatening illness. No-one has a "right" to have a child. The procedures are expensive. Money has to come from somewhere else. What do you suggest is sacrificed in the name of these attempts to reproduce?

24

SOLACE ONE,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 15:22:00

#22

I'm a senoir social worker.
I can't tell you where.
And I've seen 4 post IVF cases referred to me in the last 6 months for "various reasons"

Perhaps it takes a documentary or something to make people like you listen and realise that there is a trend here.

So what do you do that entitles you to contradict my professional anecdotal experience.

You just have a an opinion based on a belief you have no actual experience.

25

AD,

rainy Livingston 07/05/2007 15:22:27

but JG (my friend, hiya - seen any good calendars lately?!) - most of the couples that are prepared to put themselves through the trauma of IVF (from what I hear it's none too pleasant physically or psychologically) will be a lot more dedicated to those children than quite a lot of people who can conceive normally.

How much NHS money gets spent on extra care for smokers, drinkers, drug addicts who find themselves pregnant and who never really care about their children??

26

KaiPie,

07/05/2007 15:25:37

No-19# "Therefore when it's not working naturally it means by definition something is wrong biologically - and that means it is an illness and thus the NHS should pay for it."

My hair has stopped growing and has fallen out and I'm bald as a coot. My hair follicles have stopped functioning. Under your definition that means it is an illness and the NHS should fund treatment.

No. Sad though it is just because some part of your genetic make up stops working or never functioned in the first place this does not give you automatic rights to receive treatment unless there is threat to life or it impedes daily function.

When the NHS can afford it then great but there are greater priorities than this.

27

MoragtheToerag,

Leith 07/05/2007 15:41:32

The bottom line is, there's not enough funding to go round even to provide for basic healthcare needs.

Our special needs child is on a wait list for occupational therapy that is months long.

My husband's uncle waited EIGHT MONTHS for a procedure to diagnose his prostate CANCER.

Until basic healthcare needs can be fully met, I don't think the NHS should provide expensive fertility treatments as well.

The money has to come from somewhere.

They run short of flu vaccines for vulnerable people every year.

A vaccine that saves hundreds of BABIES and CHILDREN from death and/or permanent disability in about half the cases wasn't even made available here till last year because of the cost (pneumoccocal meningitis), yet somehow the system is supposed to be able to pay out thousands of pounds worth of treatment per couple on demand?

Sorry, but I just don't see IVF as a priority when you consider the bigger picture of children going w/o because of cost cuts already.

28

JG,

Fife 07/05/2007 15:41:55

#24 AD
Nothing as good as the link you provided!!! The idea can still make me have a wee flush :-)

I'm not denying the commitment couples have when they go through IVF, but the money has to come from somewhere. Much though I hate smoking and (excessive) drinking I'm not sure you could justify withdrawing treatment (though I'm still thinking about that!) from those people. Lots of the adopted children are taken from the drug addicts you mentioned (I can think of 6 personally!) - not that they should be allowed to breed willy nilly either.

29

AD,

rainy Livingston 07/05/2007 15:44:36

Then maybe the couples should be asked to make some sort of a contribution towards the NHS.

{have now saved said calendar to the favourites on this computer after finding biker chicks on hubbie's phone :o) }

30

Edinburgh Wolves,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 15:46:06

#23 JG

What do I suggest is sacrificed ?

Take your pick from the following

Trams, Trident, Holyrood Building, Middle Management in the NHS, PFI building plans, Council supported Festivals, Golden Handshakes to Council Executives leaving.....

I could go on, but you get the point.

But then going by your logic, why should someone with a life threatening illness be kept alive with expensive treatments? Just because they are alive already, by accident of birth seems to be your argument.

No-one has a "right" to stay alive either, we choose to help those people, just as we choose to help those who are less fortunate than us. It is part of the human condition that we choose to help each other overcome conditions and problems.

What makes the person with the life threatening condition more deserving than the person with the need for IVF? Is it the same situation if they are a convicted criminal?

Should we stop spending money keeping alive those who have terminal illnesses the moment it becomes terminal to focus on those who can be cured?

How about those who are old and infirm and can only be a drain on society in the future shall we focus resources away from them since they can't contribute as much as they used to?

Of course those arguments are awful and completely unfair but it IS the extension of the limited resources one you propose. How do you set up the rules for those who should get treatment over those who should not?

What you really mean is you have different priorities than those who have IVF. That's fine, that's understandable, but what it means is that we aren't talking about "rights" - we are talking about negotiation as to the price of a life - new or old - unborn or terminal.

I for one don't want a price put on life - either existing or creating.

So you decide what you think is fair and then hope that some day you don't fall foul of those rules and become a

31

kendall89,

USA 07/05/2007 15:54:14

Come to the states! There's no wait-just bring your cash (about $10,000.00 last I checked). If you're lucky enough to be here already, most insurance plans consider this a covered expense and you're likely to only be out $2,000 at most and at least possibly just your copay (about $50.00).
Thank God the gov't doesn't regulate healthcare here.

32

Edinburgh Wolves,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 16:01:12

#26 SOLACE ONE

Fair enough senior social worker.

4 Post IVF cases referred to you in the last 6 months.

How many cases do you get that aren't IVF in the last 6 months? Or more accurately what is the sample size for your department of IVF / Non IVF comparison?

I don't need a documentary, why would I need to, I hear what you are saying - based on 4 cases in 6 months you've got a trend. Fair enough, but as you said they are for various reasons. Therefore not all the same reason I presume?

I realise you can't give details publicaly - so I'll have to trust your thinking that because of your experience and "professional anecdotal experience" at that.

But look at the facts of the cases you have, rationally and consider the range of dates of the IVF cycles you are dealing with (for argument sake lets say it's 5 years , 22 month babies + 9 months + waiting time for IVF) out of the number of couples who have had IVF in whichever region you work in as a percentage how many have had to come to your desk as a case? Then how many as a percentage of the number of children born in the same 5 year period have had to come to your desk.

The factor if there are any money issues with the IVF families (who might have had to spend money to have the IVF child that otherwise would have helped things and avoided extra work pressures).

Then after all that prove your experience isn't a blip over a trend.

As for my background, I've got scientific background but also deal with the public from all walks of life on a day to day basis.

You make a case and I'll believe you. No need to get the BBC or Channel 4 spend £250,000 on a documentary (money that could be spent on something more worth while I'm sure you will argue)

You just have a an opinion based on a belief you have no actual experience.

33

JG,

Fife 07/05/2007 16:01:41

#30 BoosterGold
Please do not try to paraphrase for me - you failed! And it is not MY logic that is questionable. Of course ill people should be treated - that is why it's called the National Health Service. I asked you to decide (because there IS a limit on what can be afforded) - do you treat the guy with 3 children who needs a heart op, or a couple who want IVF? Do you treat a terminally ill patient (who is actually alive at the moment) or dish out another shot at IVF? (because it is only "a shot" - not all IVF works) My "argument" is that we should treat the people who are alive ("no one has the right to stay alive" - what???) at the moment and are trying to stay that way. It would be nice if we could pay for everything but we can't (unless you want to chip in a bit more from your pay? - no! thought not!!) - we shouldn't be paying for boob jobs etc., either.

34

Goat Boy,

07/05/2007 16:12:02

So, based on the argument that people do not have aright to have a child through the NHS, we could also argue that:

People who smoke should not be entitled to NHS treatment;

People who are obese should not have a right to NHS treatment;

People who drink alcohol should not have a right to NHS treatment;

People who crash their car driving whilst recklessly should not be entitled to NHS treatment;

People who injure themselves playing a dangerous sport should not have a right to NHS treatment;

People who take illegal drugs should not have a right to NHS treatment;

Now that should save the NHS a bit of money.

35

JG,

Fife 07/05/2007 16:14:37

#34 Goat Boy
No, we couldn't!

36

Goat Boy,

07/05/2007 16:26:10

#35: Why not? Every example is based on self inflicted problems.

They know the risks - if they choose to take this route, why should the NHS bale them out. Let them go private if it's self inflicted.

Aren't you saying the NHS is for the sick. So, based on that argument, if you CHOOSE to make yourself sick by eating fatty food, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and driving like an idiot - then that should be your problem – you have inflicted it on yourself.

37

Edinburgh Wolves,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 16:27:55

JG,

In your opinion i failed. I actually answered your question with a number of options saying where the money could come from. I assume you missed that point.

Because I've got work do to I'm making this my last post and everyone can go and choose their moral high ground until it suits them to change position.

I repeat no-one has a RIGHT to stay alive. "Rights" are ideas determined by society to be something we should all have. But we choose those rules they aren't automatic. No-one on this earth has to help another person but we choose to help. Sorry if that one seemed confusing for you.

Also thanks for highlighting my point for me... it's a choice and your example of a terminally ill patient vs IVF is one I already one I offered.

First of all it shouldn't be one or the other, secondly neither I nor you should be making that decision.

You are trying to paint me into a corner, which is a corner that doesn't need to exist. For your argument's sake you don't give all the parameters. The talk of a father of 3 needing a heart op vs the couple who want IVF, well it's an unfair comparison as I already argued that we shouldn't need to have that decision because more funding could and should be found.

Why not change your argument to another question and have one of those three children just diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis - does that help make your question fairer? In a fight between heart op, CF and IVF who wins?

Or as it's limited resources lets make it a debate over employing security to look after nurses vs the heart op for the man who later on will have his credit cards stolen by a criminal who's robbed a ward and attacked and injured a nurse on the ward where the man with the heart op is recovering?

It's easy to come up with simple dilemmas to support a point of view. But you have to be willing to accept that your point of view isn't always going to be right and isn't logical.

To answer your q

38

Goat Boy,

07/05/2007 16:32:30

#37:

Well put.

39

life23,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 19:19:40

I have read this thread and poeple are entitled to their opinions, however.

I have been trying to conceive for 6 years due to large cycst removed and complications and endometriosis. I conceived last year with twins (IVF): miscarried one and my daughter was stillborn last year. My world colpased, however I returned to work this year and have supported myself. Not relied on hand outs from the state to support us. Although I have good reason no to when many others abuse the system do not.

I have been through the post painful experience in my life and yes I do want another baby. Yes a baby I know will learn to wak, talk, run, go to school and develop into a child, teenager etc. The people who go for IVF are asked many questions. Anyone else who can conceive naturally do no get a questionnaire before they conceive to ensure they will bring up their child correctly. In the future they are looking at a disclosure for people applying for IVF. Everyone else who can have children are asked non of these questions.

The journey an IVF couple take is very hard and although it is not life threatning like cancer etc mental health is a very important factor in lives.

I would like poeple just to take a moment and think what their lives would be like without the chance to have a child, nuture it, watch it develop and become very proud of them.

I am aware that there are many children out there that do not have mummys and daddys, unfortunatley when you loose your child and it is an IVF baby you have to have time to heal before you can try again. It is not something you can just decide one night that we will try again. To add insult to injury you can not adopt a child for a while after your baby has died..... So you tell me what can be seen as "fair"?.............................

40

Get a grip,

07/05/2007 19:30:12

What a sympathetic lot you are.

It seems a lot of you think we should only dare use the NHS if we get cancer - but are non smokers. If we have heart disease but are not overweight and can only bare healthy children naturally.

I can only hope that when you do use the NHS it is for legitimate reasons only, as you have all stated.

I am happy for my taxes to help couples who have spent years trying to conceive.

I was lucky enough to have conceived naturally but realise its not like that for everyone for various reasons (those of you who said natural selection should be disgusted) and sympathise with those who cannot.

41

Paula,

07/05/2007 19:59:17

A good few years ago I had an ectopic pregnancy and nearly died, I was told the only way I would ever have a child of my own was through IVF. I was given information and advice and together my husband and I decided that if it wasn't to happen naturally then leave it be. A very hard decision but one we made.

Three years later I was pregnant with twins, conceived completely naturally and born happy and healthy. They are now great little 5 year old boys.

Had I believed the doctors, had the drive for a baby been more than my grief for the one I lost I would have began the fertility merry-go-round. So I can be accused of being a smug parent already so what would I know, but I was in that position once, I know the heartache it causes and I know that the answer doesn't always lie in the first option.

Would I have had my boys if I had gone ahead with endless medical intervention? We have decided to try for another child to join our family, if it happens it happens and we will be grateful, if it doesn't then I already have two fine boys and that is fine for me. What I don't need is the endless torture of IVF, the constant expectation and despair.

42

Squishy,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 20:34:57

16. JJ52 / 3:16pm 7 May 2007 13# "You do not have a RIGHT! At your age haveing a child is a recipe for disaster. Couples are at the correct age in their late teens to early twenties. How many getting IVF will then use the benefit system to raise their child? The NHS should be used for the care and cure ( if poss) of ill people."


YES, my husband and I DO have "right" to have a baby of our own. As you know NOTHING about us, or our lives, you have no right to comment on them. God forbide, that in my early 20s I was WORKING and contributing to the NHS. I wasnt bleeding the system dry then and I wont be doing so after my baby is born either.
BTW, I am also a foster carer, and I have a tumour................what do you say to that????


Goat boy, Life 23 and Get a grip................all well said.

Paula, congratulations

43

N Reid,

07/05/2007 20:43:22

Ok, I'd written something quite blunt and possibly rude, but having a heart I rethought my delivery. (Perhaps you will still find it rude and blunt, sorry)

If one is priveledged to have the money to offer a child a proper, healthy upbringing, as well as the mental fortitude to endure the treatments, the losses, and the eventual possibilty of having a child, then one should foot their own bill. Sorry, it's how a feel.

There are so many children who need good homes. If one is so anquished and wants to be a parent so desperately, why not adopt? Don't dare tell me it's because they want a child of their own. I see people crying fairness and sympathy, but if one does nothing to change ones own situation without medicial intervention, and are that selfish and heartless that they can only want a child of their own blood, yet cannot conceive naturally, they do not have my sympathy at all. Sorry.

Before you tell me what a terrible cow I am, I had many ovarian cysts when I was quite young. I was told at the time the chances of my having a child were greatly reduced. I know exactly how it feels to be told something so devistating, but there are options that do not require needles. Maybe I'm just way too complacent, but I've found the real fun is in just trying the way God intended.

44

Hugh Jass,

leith 07/05/2007 20:48:44

My wife and i have been trying for a child for three years now.We both work hard to pay for our mortgage,don't smoke,teetotal,excercise frequently and have never ever claimed anything off the state.IVF gives us hope to conceive a child after failing 3 times with IUI and despite certain previous comments, believe we should get financial assistance to pay for the treatment.Unless you have been or are going through the trauma of infertility,YOU WILL NEVER EVER UNDERSTAND. A great book for those intrested is called 'swimming upstream,the struggle to conceive' by David Rawlings and Karen Looi(peacock publications,Australia)

45

Jock MacSprog,

07/05/2007 20:52:19

squishy, you do have a right to have an IVF if you can afford to pay for it. Explain to me why I should have to pay for a non medically necessary procedure ? Why would adoption not fulfill your urgent need that will cause you medical or psychologicall harm if you dont fulfill it ? And why your at it explain why you have this right ? Just cause you feel like it ? We do have a right to comment on your life and your situation if you are asking us all to pay for it. Otherwise pay yourself and we wont care what you are doing or feeling.

Still no good explanations by anyone on here why :
1. You cannot adopt
2. You cannot pay yourself.

46

nurse ratched,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 21:03:56

Solace one - I'm right there with you on your post at No. 21. I'm a Sick Kids nurse 'to trade' & know precisely where you're coming from.

47

Squishy,

Edinburgh 07/05/2007 21:11:03

To #45 Jock Macsprog.

As I already said..................My husband and I HAVE paid for it, for many years, by paying our stamps. Since we have both contributed to the health care system (and continue to do so) we do have that right.

To answer your question re" Why would adoption not fulfill your urgent need that will cause you medical or psychologicall harm if you dont fulfill it " Sadly because of various reasons, we can NOT adopt, 1 of them being that ironcally we are classed as "too old".

We are not too old. We will both still be well under the age of retirment when our child leaves school.

If we had gotten what we had wanted, we would have adopted many years ago............and from this country.

Oh, and by the way, were did I write that I would be harmed if I didnt have a child?

48

Jockyw,

07/05/2007 22:07:15

Inclusive picture with Sheena isn't a great example for advertising that couples require to be within a certain weight bracket etc. Someone send her a free trial to weight watchers.

49

Charles Linskaill,

EDINBURGH 07/05/2007 22:51:24

Gosh, so many with so much to say on this Topic!
Its a shame, there wasn't a balance, on the matter.
Well because I know of Sheena Young, and Know the IVF Teams at the ERI, I cannot just Ignore this topic and comment page.
We have been "tryingforababy" now for 9years! (my wife in her 20s by the way) and it wasn't her fault she has PCOS! (no she is not a fatty! before anyone suggests) it took 3doctors and 4years of her life to find that one out!
I think many of you forget, a Woman's biological clock! and a Woman's "calling" for her "tohaveababy"
It may be for some "I just want one" if So I see some of the argument on here, but "NO WAY" should a Woman be denied help in whats a natural process, for her!
Infertility affects, close to 1 in 6 couples now, just about every Country, in the EU, are so worried about it, they have addressed the problem, by giving couples that want a baby, help.
You see, be a "MUPPET" if you want! but this will affect everyone! the whole economic balance is affected! live in you 220k+ house , it will be worth "NOTHING" if babies aren't brought into this world!
So "YES A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT FOR A CHILD"
And this is in the "COURT OFF HUMAN RIGHTS" If anyone care to take a Look!
You See we are? hopefully still Human, A Woman is a Woman! why is she made that way? Yes! are we all clever today? Well Done! "have a baby"
Take all your, Gold, 200k+ home, Plasma TV, to your grave if you want! but it ain't gonna do you any good there! you will only be a "ONCE WAS"
The insensitivity on this subject "BEATS ME"!
And how many couples are they talking about? less than 300
All those "hopeful parents" Like us, would be "OVER THE MOON" Just to have, something that's Natural for so many! (but that will change, like now as its becoming more difficult to co

50

JG,

Fife 07/05/2007 22:56:30

#37 BoosterGold
I'm not at all confused - I saw where you proposed money could be saved. I'm not in the least bit political but I thought you could only allocate money to items within your remit (i.e. you can't use the Police budget to finance health care and vice versa) and of course in some sort of Utopian world we would be able to pay for everything and we'd all live happily ever after.

Those "rules" you referred to stem from the hypocratic oath where doctors essentially vow to save life - a bit difficult when it hasn't been realised yet, thus the reason people who are actually HERE would take priority. In your scenario where one of those 3 children I used as an example was diagnosed with CF, the father would still take priority as his condition is more immediate (unless you infer that the child needs a transplant, in which case heart/lungs would have to be available) - you'll see the IVF is still in last place (although I would place it above a boob job). It's really called using common sense and prioritising.

Of course I sympathise with couples who can't have the child they want but we can't afford to pay for everything and unfortunately 1 IVF treatment doesn't = one baby.

51

Ms Horrible Cankers,

The Cyber Shebeen 07/05/2007 23:10:43

Less of the remarks re the woman's weight...who gies a flying feck at a rolling doughnut?...why do men always have to personalise articles when a photo of a woman who doesnt quite please them appears?

And since when is it dangerous and too late to have a kid when you are over the age of thirty??....fer feck sake!!

52

N Reid,

07/05/2007 23:50:51

Regarding weight comments - Obesity is actually one link to infertility that may be why people are mentioning weight. (http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=x2004051723...)

I'm hearing an arguement that there is some "NEED to have a baby" that's utter tripe. Give me a break. Maybe in the pre-1960's there was some social pressure put upon famlies, but that has vastly changed. We are humans, capable of reason. There is no natural or biological urge to procreate anymore - there is no pressure put upon our survival and we're not an endangered species, it's a want, a desire and attempt to validate an obsession - and what I see are people on a waiting list, stroking their ego from their failure to do something naturally with hopes of a medical fix at the expense of tax payer money.

The proverbial biological clock is merely a marketting tool by nappy cream companies at this point. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

As far as age factors on healthy babies - there is a link, there are risk factors the farther past 30 you go. The risk for having a child with Down syndrome rises from about 1 in 759 at age 30 to 1 in 302 at age 35, 1 in 82 at age 40. The older you are when you get pregnant, the more likely you are to have a chronic disease, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, that may be undiagnosed and can affect your pregnancy.

You're also at higher risk of developing certain complications during pregnancy such as gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, placental abruption (in which the placenta prematurely separates from the uterine wall), and placenta previa (in which the placenta lies low in the uterus, partly or completely covering the cervix).

Finally, researchers have found a higher risk of stillbirth and maternal death in women who give birth at 35 or older. Report Unsuitable

53

Charles Linskaill,

EDINBURGH 08/05/2007 00:23:01

#52 I hear what you say! but there is, a biological clock, and Woman are still Woman, never mind about the 1960's and its not an obsession, its just Nature!
We all pay taxes, that isn't the argument!
And NO D****** Way is it an Obsession"

54

weemissie,

08/05/2007 08:18:36

#14 - I have never said that a person has a right to a child, a child is an individual not an object for people to won, what I did say though is that people have a right to medical treatment if it is needed and it is not for others to say whether they feel your medical needs justify the cost. As mentioned by myself and several others, the world would be up in arms if I started saying that lung cancer sufferers who smoke shouldnt revice treatment because their illness is self inflicted, or if I suggest that people who dont work should start paying for their prescriptions rather than people who do and are already contributing to the NHS. People feel it is fine in this day in age, to have 3 kids not work, live on benefits and use the NHS whenever they or their children have a need, smoke 70 cigarettes a day but demand treatment for Astma, lung infections etc, take heroin then allow the NHS to give them free methadone and then go out and take some more heroin but as a hard working indivdual who contributes to society, how dare I use the NHS money to fund my selfish insane need to have a baby. I have a right to healtcare as much as all of the people mentioned above and no-one should be able to say my needs are not real and that infertility is not a real illness.

#19 - you said everything I always try to say but can never get right, thank you

55

weemissie,

08/05/2007 08:32:13

Solace One - I am sure you have seen many cases that are heartbreaking but are you trying to tell me that the only cases you have seen have been post IVF cases, how many cases do you deal with a week, a month a a year and out of them what percentage rate is 4 cases 1% so because 4 individual couples for whatever reason had problems with their own lives every single couple who has an IVF baby will lose interest at around 22 months!!!!

I love my son!! If I could put that in bold capitals and make it stand out more I would because maybe then it would sink in, my son was born prematurely, he was ill for 5 months out of his life, he is now a lively toddler and causes me more than hassle in one day than I can ever remember, he has a temper, he is into everything and you need 4 pairs of eyes and seven hands just to manage him, am I sick of him, NO, will I EVER be sick of him NO, there are times when I collapse on my bed from exhaustion, try to think how I'm going to fit everything I have to do tomorrow into one day and my little boy will pick that moment to wake up and start screaming because he needs his nappy changed, do you know what I do in those moments??? smile and thank god for blessing me the way he has because I know how lucky I am, I am not going to stop loving my little boy when he learns to walk, or goes to school or brings how his first girlfriend, I am going to watch each and every one of these milestones with a smile on my face and a song in my heart because I am truly blessed and no-one will ever tell me that I just needed a baby, that I just needed a child, I wanted a family, I wanted to watch someone that grew inside my belly, learn, grow and prosper and I wanted to be able to hold my son in my arms at the age of 2 weeks, 2 years, 10 years and 20 years and tell him how much I love him, if that makes me and the other mums and dads like me selfish then I personally think the world could do with a few more selfish people.

btw if you believe

56

twigs,

edinburgh 08/05/2007 08:41:30

i cant believe some of the comments on here, you should be ashamed of yourselves. So many couples waste so much of there lives in deep dispair and the urge for a child of your own gets to much. I tried for a baby for 5 years and was on the waiting list at eri, the staff at edinburgh are fantastic and helped us achieve our dream and i have a 12 week old baby thanks to them. Before i concieved i used to cry everyday, someone who has not been there just doesnt understand the pain. I have many friends who have been and going through ivf and they should be entitled to some cycles on the nhs, i agree that the nhs have to draw the line after 3 cycles and then you go private if you want to continue but these women deserve the chance and then waiting list of 3 years is unacceptable. The government are always moaning the birth rate is dropping and pensions are in crisis so we need more kids so lets get this number up by helping women who will worship their children and bring them up properly, and these kids will know how much they were wanted and are loved. Also they should sterlise junkies who keep getting there kids taken into care and then keep having more and they dont give a stuff about them, the world is so unfair.

57

Mrs S,

Edinburgh 08/05/2007 09:08:06

To all the people on here who have never had a problem with fertility, or who have no desire for children and who are against IVF treatment... just crawl back under the rock you emerged from because you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

The NHS have funded IVF treatment for years, and yet I've never heard anyone complain until now.

I myself went through IVF treatment (ICSI actually). My husband and I have both worked all our working days and have contributed to the NHS. Although it may not be a given right to have a child, it was our desire. Sadly for us the IVF treatment was unsuccessful.

However, I did go on to conceive twice naturally and have 2 beautiful children for whom I am eternally grateful. But there are thousands of couples out there not as lucky as we are...

Medical science has come along way over the years, and I am all for IVF and ICSI treatment.

So to all of you people with your negative comments just shut up!!

58

Bert,

08/05/2007 15:58:40

Why can't people just accept they're not meant to have children?

59

Hospitalphoenix,

08/05/2007 18:56:46

So...

There aren't enough doctors willing to perform abortions, and infertility treatment has a long waiting list.

Why not club together and set up an adoption agency? Surely this would be better than murdering loads of innocent children and spending billions of NHS pounds on unsuccessful fertility treatment?

The couples who want a child to complete their family can adopt one who would otherwise have been aborted.

What sort of a society do we live in where some people want to murder their kids, and others (who can't bear kids naturally) want expensive, unnatural interventions?

60

Kahala,

HONOLULU, HAWAII USA 09/05/2007 05:41:39

Honolulu is the leading city in the United States for IVF. Take a holiday here, get treated and write the trip off on your taxes. Look up IVF Hawaii on Google and see for yourself. Aloha...

61

Ms Horrible Cankers,

The Cyber Shebeen 09/05/2007 09:41:05

59....a cluster of cells or an embryo is not a 'kid'.....get your facts right.

62

Ms Horrible Cankers,

The Cyber Shebeen 09/05/2007 09:42:53

59...and here, in Britain, a foetus has to be living and breathing independantly before it is classed as being alive in its own right...which is another reason why abortion is not classed as murder.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.