image

Should the NHS stop funding IVF treatment?

IVF could be restricted to women aged 35 and under

One in six couples in the UK now struggle to conceive. That’s a hefty portion of the population.

NHS providers in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire are considering restricting IVF to women struggling to conceive aged between 30 and 35, which would make them the first to limit services to such a narrow age range.

Thirteen areas of England have introduced restrictions or stopped providing IVF completely since the beginning of the year, according to the latest research.

Under health service guidance, those aged under 40 with fertility problems should be offered up to three cycles of IVF. Those aged between 40 and 42 should be offered one cycle if they meet certain criteria.

Prof Simon Fishel, who was part of a team that pioneered IVF in the UK, expressed grave concerns about the inequality of cuts.

“If the country decides it will not fund IVF then fine, that is a decision that affects everyone … but what I cannot abide is the local variation for something like this, which doesn’t reflect local populations.”

IVF, done privately, can cost up to £5,000 per cycle, and there is no promise that it will work the first time.

These proposed cuts to NHS funding could sentence many who long to be parents to remain forever childless.

What are your views? Do you think IVF should be funded by the NHS? Could the limited funds we do have in the NHS be put to better use? Have you had experience of IVF in your family? Are some women leaving it too late to try and conceive a baby naturally due to career or life choices? 

Should the NHS stop funding IVF treatment?

443 people have already voted, what's your opinion? Yes No

What are your views?

We'd love to hear your comments

Not a member?

You need to be a member to interact with Silversurfers. Joining is free and simple to do. Click the button below to join today!

Click here if you have forgotten your password
davehughes
22nd Sep 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
I believe in nature. If conception doesn't occur there is a reason. I agree with WendyJ21 - there are many unwanted children needing a loving home. If nature decrees that a couple cannot conceive the NHS should encourage adoption rather than IVF.
MarieS21
8th Sep 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
A woman failing to conceive is usually due to an underlying medical problem. It causes mental health agony to people who wish to become parents like most normal people. I speak from experience., I now have three children who are good decent professionals contributing towards the system and enjoying life.
1BA
19th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
I think everyone should get 2 free rounds on the NHS. I knew a very well off couple who had 3 rounds on the NHS . Sadly this did not work. I asked them if they were going to continue and pay for treatment to my utter surprise they said no. They would have more treatment if it were paid for by NHS.but they would not pay . She said they had better things to do with the money like the cruise thet were going on which would last a couple of months. Made me wonder how much they really wanted a child.
WendyJ21
18th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
It is sad not being able to conceive. On the other hand there are so many unwanted children wanting a loving home.
garry17
18th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
they should pay for it theirselves the money should be spent on cancer and heart patients not relying on charities like they do.
elysee
18th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
No one is asking why couples are struggling to conceive. Should we not concentrate on solving that problem, then we wouldn't have to fund IVF treatment.
jeanmark
18th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
Oh, if only things were that simple. There are a number of reasons for infertility, unfortunately for some IVF is the only answer.
Plymouthmaid
18th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
I believe in funding one cycle any others should be self funded.
jeanmark
18th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
That is already the case in some areas, the problem being that it can be a postcode lottery and that is unfair. If availability on the NHS was equal across the UK there may be a little more understanding. However, I am sure there will be some who will argue if you can't afford £5-6,000 for one treatment you can't afford to have a child!

My own belief is that only those women unable to conceive and carry a child full term can really only understand what being infertile is like.
Chrise68
18th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
Thought long and hard about this and have reasoned that a limit should be set at age 35 for one treatment only. Any other treatments should be self funded.
mouse47
17th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
no it for health not a want
HeatherC91
15th Aug 2017
6
Thanks for voting!
Yes, the NHS should stop funding ALL IVF treatment. The NHS was set up to treat patients who are ill, not to fund treatment of this sort. The NHS is being abused by all and sundry. I also believe the NHS should not fund treatment for transgender surgery. These procedures (IVF and transgender) should be self-funded. When I worked in the NHS it was an eye opener to see how much money was wasted.
jeanmark
20th Aug 2017
-2
Thanks for voting!
If you do not believe transgender surgery should be provided on the NHS, do you also believe transgender people should pay for their mental health treatment? Most did not ask to be born in the 'wrong body'.

I agree there is waste in the NHS but often unavoidable waste.
winky
14th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
This is a very touchy subject i am married to TWIN WHO WAS GIVEN AWAY just after WW2 , after a great deal of discussion with my wife we have both come to the same verdict ,which ! IS I.V.F. treatment should be given on the N.H.S. up to the age of 35 no higher for older than that means that if succesful at 40 say when the child is in his/her 21 st the parents are going to be o.a.p.s. We would also suggest that after the first session the couple should contribute at the very least half the cost of further treatments.
pal23r
14th Aug 2017
7
Thanks for voting!
If the adoption route is not for you then I do believe you should fund IVF yourself.
KarenT2
14th Aug 2017
8
Thanks for voting!
There are greater priorities for the NHS
JuliaG8
13th Aug 2017
9
Thanks for voting!
People should fund it themselves.
waterfall
11th Aug 2017
4
Thanks for voting!
Well, I have been lucky enough to have 2 children normally, and I can understand parents wanting their own child, If I had been faced with not be able to conceive naturally, I would think I would adopt or foster. In my eyes any child is my child.
jeanmark
12th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
The problem is neither adopting or fostering is always an option. Many women want the experiencing of bearing a child and also caring for a child from babyhood, not an older child which is often what is available. As for fostering, a friend of mine does foster babies and is heartbroken each time the baby has to be returned although she continues.

Many years ago I was refused adoption on the grounds I was too old, I was 30!
SharonB211
11th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
I know this is a difficult one 22years ago I was denied ivf on the nhs because my husband had children from a previous marriage. This was incredibly difficult for me to cope with however I understood that the nhs only has a certain amount of money to go round and though I dearly would have liked to give birth to a child its not a right. It took an awful amount of personal strength and support from my husband family and close friends to get me through and though its my personal regret I can't charge it.
ecarg
10th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
The advancements in medicine are great but in turn they raise peoples expectations of what treatments are possible, everyone one wants the most beneficial treatment due to their own circumstances.I'm glad I,m not in the position of making choices regarding peoples health care or treatments and admire those who have to do so balancing the best treatment agaisn't costs.
However I do take the point that having a child is a gift not a right but there again I have children - would I have been one of those seeking IVF I 'm pretty sure I would but I think I would also of been prepared to meet the cost .
Re lateral thinker
Prescriptions are free in Scotland and I thought they were in England also children in classes P1- P3 get a free lunch a bit more than a bottle of milk.
lateral thinker
10th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
This is a really hard one, My opinion is...with so v. Many orphans in the world, nature seems to have provided a solution.......
potential parents for them in childless couples.

With such limited NHS
Funds....maybe,
Restricted to couples WITHOUT any children of their own. AND
Means tested.!
People who can afford to pay, shouldn,t
Exploit NHS resources for something that isn,t essential or classed as illness.

Another solution...
Stop the Government serupticiously privatising the NHS slowly, but, surely in the hope that we won,t notice.
Eg. Paying for dental
Work, (once paid for by national insurance stamp)
Paying for prescriptions...(ditto).
Taking away school health measures........ free milk for children.......they don,t all come from homes that would supply it!
No longer the school health checks that prevented outbreaks of head lice etc.
Could go on & on......
Let,s hear about the ones that you,ve noticed.
They call them ' cutbacks'
Looks like privatisation by the 'back door' !!!!!!!

No money! They could find it to support their votes in the commons.!!! (via Northern Ireland).

Where is all the extra money from putting the disabled & sick, back to work? The extra taxes they
Supply.? The savings from
The 'cutbacks' & so on.

Interested to hear your comments.
.
piggy50
10th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
Yes for the people over age 35. More than once I've read about women over aged 50 being pregnant via IVF that has been funded by the NHS and those in child bearing age being told they can't have any more IVF treatment because their funding has run out!
Pauline52
10th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
Up to £5,000 for private treatment- yes, I know that's true, and it isn't easy money to find. I also recognise that Nature is sometimes unfair, but doesn't that also apply to people with (e.g.) cancer, cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome etc. etc. etc. If we're going to talk about all people having the same 'rights', please explain to me how we're going to make these awful diseases and disabilities go away for those that are affected.

In the overall scheme of things, £5K is peanuts - a minuscule part of the cost of raising a child. If you've reached the age of 30 and can't save the £5K for IVF treatment, how will you find the money to pay for a child's cloths, food, books, toys etc. in even the first few years of his/her life?

Having a child isn't a 'right' to be funded by the state; in these days of everyone's 'right' to do as they wish with their own body, it's a responsibility to be carefully considered with the next 20 years (and sometimes much more) in mind. Sometimes, it just isn't meant to be!
Ange29
9th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
Funding for IVF should be the same across the country as at the moment some health authorities allow 1 cycle some 2 & Scotland 3 cycles.
The yearning for a child & then failed treatments can cause so much heartache for a couple ( maybe costing the NHS more money as they may need counselling & possibly medication for any resulting depression). The people who object probably have children of their own. I have found that most people do not understand this all consuming need for a family. I have known people who have had two treatments on the NHS & then have gone on to get into debt to pay privately, which is extremely expensive.
Some people also make insensitive remarks & cant understand why couples with infertility problems find it difficult to be around couples with babies ( even good friends) . Yes serious health issues such as cancer should take priority.
We all should pay more taxes to help pay for our great NHS.
DavidB64
9th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
Its a difficult situation, but at the end of the day the NHS doesn't have a bottomless purse. I think it should be offered to younger people. I know of someone who was offered it, and while waiting fell pregnant. Had she had the ivf, it'd have been a waste of money.
jules27
10th Aug 2017
7
Thanks for voting!
The Nhs is not there for peoples wants but to provide healthcare for those that need it. As we have all seen it is struggling at the minute and to fund IVF seems to me just adding to the burden. No I do not understand the all consuming need to have children but the reality is, why should a health service be providing IVF when there are so many more pressing concerns it should be addressing
Luckymother
9th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
I personally had problems conceiving, it took me 12 years to get pregnant with my one and only daughter. My daughter has been diagnosed with polycystic ovaries (PCOS) which means she herself will/could have difficulties conceiving. I also had an aunty that had difficulties conceiving and didn't get her daughter until into her 40's. My daughter is currently 30 years of age and is single. So her body clock is ticking quite quickly. If she doesn't meet the love of her life soon she could very well end up childless if the NHS follow through with their plans. On the other hand if women start panicking and "just take up with any man" just to get a family then we could end up with a lot more single parents, and I have nothing whatsoever against single parents as I myself have been a single parent since my daughter was 14 months old. Her fertility difficulties are most likely inherited but I certainly don't think the privilege of becoming a parent should be taken away or refused because she may be a year or two over the NHS's "regulations" if they go ahead with this.
sallylorraine
9th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
There is such a tremendous amount of money wasted in the NHS. If efficient managers were employed, they could save millions and be able to fund IVF.
ElizabethJane1
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
My son now nineteen was conceived via NHS funded IVF. This was our first attempt although we had had three IUIs. We would be denied this chance if this was happening now. I was also thirty six so would be deemed too old under the new criteria.
It will be a retrograde step to withdraw NHS funded IVF as more couples will seek NHS counselling for their mental health problems related to their infertility.
jeanmark
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
This is such a difficult topic to discuss and maybe only those unable to conceive truly understand the cost.

I note a number of comments refer to having children as a 'gift' rather than a right. I won't disagree with those comments but imagine that when you were a child all your friends received a gift at a party but you didn't. Would'n't you have stood there and wondered what you had done wrong to be excluded from the joy your friends had at receiving a gift. How do you think you would have felt if you were then expected to congratulate them for being given a gift you hadn't?

Yes, having children may be a gift but that doesn't help those unable to conceive to understand why they haven't been 'chosen'. How do you think you would you feel if it was implied that 'mother-nature' obviously thought you were not worthy of being a 'real' woman?
JenniferR1
9th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
Totally agree. I was never gifted with a child or given the option if IVF so had to go through the painful journey of adoption. I now have 2 sons and 5 grandchildren who I love dearly but still wonder sometimes what it would have been like to carry a child.
jeanmark
10th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
I empathise Jennifer, IVF was not yet available but it would never have been an option for me. However, I was also refused the option of adoption because I was 30 (I was 27 when I married, the same year I had to have a hysterectomy). You learn to adjust and at least I had a career I could concentrate on.

Looking back, what I find so surprising is the level of abuse I received, particularly from mothers, some who went so far as to call me a 'selfish bitch' for putting my career first!

I believe that unless you are in a position of being unable to conceive it is difficult to understand the impact it has on you as an individual.
Munsterlander
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
If people have enough money they can pay privately-if not have it on the NHS-Means tested in other words....Simples
Margaret Hart
9th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
This is a difficult question as it really splits the haves and have nots. Why should someone who cannot afford private treatment be prevented from having children through no fault if their own. On the other hand the NHS are desperate for cash and people with horrendous conditions Ned very expensive treatments. I've voted for it being stopped on the NHS but I really think everybody deserves one chance if they are a couple.

Also this country should be looking at limiting the number of children for which child allowance can be claimed to 2/3.
nelliebear
9th Aug 2017
15
Thanks for voting!
The NHS was formed to treat the sick and ailing people free at point of use . IVF, cosmetic procedures ( unless for medical reasons ) are not diseases or life threatening so should not be free !
NorfolkBroad
9th Aug 2017
9
Thanks for voting!
Nobody has a 'right' to a child; they are a gift and parents are part of life's lottery - some can conceive and some can't. Maybe it is Mother Nature's way of controlling the population? Women who put off having children until they have satisfied their career pattern or completed a bucket list of exotic holidays first and then discover they have left it too late should just accept that fact or pay to go privately for IVF. Too many 'second time round' couples where the man has had a vasectomy before they got together . . . same principal applies. Even with the proposed changes to an already strapped-for-cash NHS which suggests only treating women between the age of 30 and 35 should have a proviso that treatment is free once only. We all have the right to make certain choices in our life and in our lifestyle - but all choices have consequences.
Lionel
9th Aug 2017
4
Thanks for voting!
I didn't have children. The reasons aren't germane to this thread.

I didn't easily come to terms with this fact of life until a clergyman friend, now a very old man, pointed out children are a gift of God not a right. He also said, you have but one right, to die. All else is a privilege. I quickly learned to overcome.

A couple of years into this century found me raising two of my second wife's grand children. Babies. Not a 12 year experience I would wish to repeat.

I've met other childless couples and empathise with their grief, their anger. But I would like to say, 'grow up, life is not tailor made to your requirements. No, you shape up to the life you have.'

I believe IVF, and some other procedures, should not have been made widely available on the NHS. They are very costly and pander to people's emotional needs. It would be far better to allow childless young couples to accept their state and grow into their maturity by accepting what is, rather than pleading a case of entitlement.

There is no entitlement in life! There is only what is!
Soapbox
9th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
People only turn to IVF when they're desperate .Adoption sounds like a good alternative but with children only needing homes because they have come from a place with various kinds of appalling conditions , many people are simply unable to cope with the behaviour these traumatised children display . In addition they can only adopt if they can jump through the 'one person must stay at home for a year ' hoop and they have a house big enough for the children to have their own room etc etc adoption is not for the faint-hearted and people are rejected for incomprehensible reasons . My unwillingly childless friends say the pain never goes away , not only do they not have children , they don't have grandchildren either ,20 +years later salt is rubbed into the wound of childlessness .
Lionel
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
Soapbox, I don't know why you got hit with red thumbs down because you told a truth.

Adoption is a perilous business. My second, and present wife, adopted a greatly disturbed boy nearly thirty years ago. Neither she nor then husband were given the facts of that child. Only a few years down the road was she aware of the full horror of his violent capacity.

When she and I married, in the late nineties, he lived with us for a year and then turned very nasty toward me. He wouldn't see any reason. It made a strong move for supremacy - it became him or me. Mistake, I've been around the block a good few times. I kicked him out! And he has stayed out.

Today he is the father of several illegitimate children, all supported by the State, never had a job and done time for extreme violence towards another man. He is now a drug dealer in the nearest city.

Make of that what you will.
junentony
9th Aug 2017
6
Thanks for voting!
It's time for our government to stand up to save where it can for our health service and make it fair to all even if it's a basic service only state clearly what it will and will not pay for and stick to it then people will know where they stand and let's face it there are so many children needing a home let's make it easier for ordinary people to adopt them ...
Crazyduck
9th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
Yes there are loads of kids up for adoption but about 75% have invisible special needs, I know I have one. Why should others only have the choice of bringing up a kid who you have to fight tooth and nail to have seen. That almost certainly is not your "normal" child. Your wrong. Stop people abusing the kids in care system, if they have two in care sterilise them so they don't produce more of the same. Some have 10 kids in care all with problems. That's where your money goes.
anubis
9th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
This is a hard topic to approach I know from personal experience the pain of both life threatening illness and difficulty having a desperately wanted child. I have a younger friend who is struggling with the latter right now. As it happens I didn`t need IVF but she does and I wouldn`t want to be the one to have to say no to her because that would cause a life long pain. However I know she would be the first to pass up on her hopes and dreams to have the money spent on life saving treatments she raises money every year for Cancer Charities. I wish there was money for both.
Pam1960
9th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
Difficult to say who is or isn't entitled to or worthy of priority treatment. The majority of people would consider their own illness especially if terminal or very painful to be of the highest priority however these numbers are extremely high. Going back to a topic previously covered on Silversurfers should someone who is a smoker who develops lung cancer be classed as a priority over someone who doesnt have cancer but has breathing difficulties. Breast enhancements are again not clear cut, people will assume this is all about vanity. Women with very large breasts suffer extreme back pain. Is their back pain any less worthy. Breast enhancements are often linked with confidence and self worth. If the money is not spent on this it would probably have to be spent on mental health care fir the same person when they are suffering from depression. We have to trust the NHS to prioritise to their best ability given current funding and resources
scandiman
9th Aug 2017
8
Thanks for voting!
I feel sorry for those who want children but can't have them. However, being a parent is not a right, but a privilege, with considerable responsibility. I am not a parent, for several reasons, which I won't mention. I accept that parenthood is not to be mine, and I deal with it. I do feel that I have missed something, but I cope with it. To me, it seems that a lot of people marry (or don't), and having children is automatic. For some it seems inconceivable (no pun intended!) that they won't.
A person can't have everything, get over it. It annoys me when large sums are spent on this by NHS, yet some cancer treatment etc is denied on grounds of cost.
djl277
9th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
Around one in seven couples may have difficulty conceiving. This is approximately 3.5 million people in the UK. IVF offers equality for couples, for whatever reason, are unable to conceive naturally.

The headline is misleading as the article refers to NHS England. The Scottish Government fully funds three cycles of IVF Treatment for eligible couples in Scotland and as far as I'm aware NHS Wales offers two and NI one.
Lionel
9th Aug 2017
-1
Thanks for voting!
There's no equality in life, not anywhere. To think otherwise is a delusion. A failed IVF cycle doesn't bring equality to the lacking couple. No, it brings further heart ache.

A successful IVF cycle doesn't bring equality because the couple always know that conception was engineered and paid for by the National Health Service.

Let's get some real time here. Can't have kids? Live with it. I have!
djl277
10th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
Only your own pompous opinion.
Lionel
10th Aug 2017
-1
Thanks for voting!
I thank you for your most gracious comment. Rather sadly you are at the very back of a sixty year long queue in disagreeing with me.

My God changes not, and therefore neither do I.

Make what you will of that.
PaulaH
9th Aug 2017
5
Thanks for voting!
Waited seven years for my op because money is being wasted on non essentials like IVF.
Wilf
9th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
7 years that seems an incredible amount of time
-3
Thanks for voting!
Why is your op more important than helping someone have a child?? IVF is not non-essential to someone who cannot conceive - now if you are talking about non-essential plastic surgery or gender reassignment operations or money wasted on people who are deliberately harming themselves with drugs and alcohol I would agree - there are many ways the NHS could save money but cutting IVF shouldn't be one of them!
Pam1960
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
7 years is an awful long Time. I suppose a lot depends on the nature of the illness as to whether it is life threatening or not. Unfortunately being in pain does not appear to be a criteria for prioritising treatment. I also think location plays a part. I havent had any bad experience with BHS waiting lists. My son was getting pains in his legs. He went to the doctors, 2 days later he went to see a consultant at Nottingham BMX and was diagnosedcwirh compartment syndrome and a week later he had an operation on both legs which was done at Leicester Infirmary. I was prepared to pay to get the op done quickly but it was done on the NHS asap as it was considered urgent
jeanmark
9th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
Gender reassignment is as essential to a person as IVF is to another, you can not say one is more important than the other, Being born in the 'wrong' body is as devastating as being unable to conceive. Drug and alcohol abuse may initially be self harming but once addicted it isn't something that can be addressed easily. Yes, there are many ways the NHS could save money and restricting IVF may be one way but not the only way and it shouldn't be a post code lottery.
Dylans Slave
9th Aug 2017
9
Thanks for voting!
The NHS is struggling. IVF is expensive and, I understand, not particularly successful. The money should be directed to life threatening illnesses. I know people will say it's distressing not to have children but it's very distressing to have to wait for, say, cancer treatment etc. Let's not get started on breast enhancements and reductions!!! Waiting lists for anything are beyond ridiculous.
Wilf
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
I agree the treatments should prioritise life saving ops etc first. Just seems like the NHS is a vast bureaucracy and until someone gets to grips with it (UK government) it will continue the way it is or worse when we leave the Eu as many workers come from the EU.
Dylans Slave
9th Aug 2017
6
Thanks for voting!
Trouble is also these days people expect everything as a 'right' 'It's my right to have a child' when actually it's a gift. But that attitude enters all aspects of life now.
2
Thanks for voting!
Yes having a child is definitely a gift but some people need help to receive it whilst others don't even appreciate the gifts that they have 🙁
Jacarandas
9th Aug 2017
6
Thanks for voting!
Completely agree with you. This is not what the NHS was set up for and should never have been.
Dylans Slave
9th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
I had to pay a lot of money last year for a knee replacement or wait 2 years.....or more. At 64 I didn't have 2 years to waste. Such false economy as those waiting will be costing NHS in the meantime.
Pam1960
9th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
The time has come for an increase in taxes this increase is for funding the NHS only. If we want to offer good quality care from trained professionals we need to invest. Offering IVF is only the tip of the iceberg which other treatments will be cut. As in a household budget you can't afford everything so choices have to be made. Either we invest more or accept inevitable cuts
Wilf
9th Aug 2017
6
Thanks for voting!
I think you are right Pam but from what I can see and talking to friends in the NHS they need to cut out all these managers and make it more efficient. Once that is done and if the NHS needs more money I for one would be happy to pay a bit more in taxs as we all need medical treatment at some time or another and our doctors and especially nurses need looking after. the latter need a pay rise and quickly!
jeanmark
9th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
jeanmark
9th Aug 2017
-1
Thanks for voting!
How many large organisations, the NHS being one of the largest in the UK, do you know that doesn't have managers at various levels to ensure the organisation works?
HeatherC91
15th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
Totally agree with you about the managers. I retired from the NHS three years ago and there was an ever increasing number of managers, some with obscure job titles, many of whom did not have degrees in subjects any way scientific or medical. In other words, they hadn't a clue. What these people did have though was huge salaries. Get rid of some of these managers, they are not essential. Maybe then the NHS can employ more doctors and nurses. Also get rid of university degrees for nursing. Nursing is a caring profession often undertaken by people of a more working class background and not everyone can afford the £9000 a year fees a university degree course costs.
Wilf
15th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
Yes I agree about the managers Heather I have worked for big organisations and they breed bureaucracy-more managers need more managers and admin etc etc. they need a flatter structure. It doesnt bode well when Jeremy Hunt is in the press this week as having a private bathroom/shower costing £40,000. What a joke. How can people like him hold their heads up. The salaries for managers are stupid as well. How on earth can managers like these earn above £100,000 per annum is beyond me. Top doctors yes...managers no!
Pam1960
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
I think this is a very difficult question. As I was able to have my own children naturally I will never be able to fully feel that yearning that many women have and the sense of failure and loss they experience each month. I was adopted as we're many children in the 50s and 60s. For couples experiencing problems for many adoption was the route for them. Nowadays due to contraception and abortion the numbers of children babies especially that are available is quite small. I personally would like the IVF on the NHS to be available after all other avenues have been covered
MrsPat
9th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
I do not see how the NHS can choose seeing as its us the tax payers who fund it so if a woman pays taxes why shouldn't she have IVF treatment? I have read recently that mens sperm count is decreasing by about 50% in many cases over the last 30 years mainly due scientists are saying due to chemicals in the environment. It looks to me like more women may need IVF in future not less.
jeanmark
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
A nice thought MrsPat but I'm afraid that however much tax people pay, it will never be sufficient to fund a modern NHS. It has become a bottomless pit because of all the medical advances and so how do you choose what treatments to give 'for free'? Do you decide that a life saving treatment is less important than a woman wanting a child?
Wilf
9th Aug 2017
1
Thanks for voting!
Jean I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who was a mental nurse in the NHS for 30 years. He has just retired and now due to shortages they have written to ask if he wants to return again and he would get paid plus have a pension? He was saying in the 30 years in the NHS he saw a huge increase in managers and bureaucracy. It seems they need more frontline staff and less managers managing managers! Someone there needs to get a grip and its not Jeremy Hunt.
Dylans Slave
9th Aug 2017
8
Thanks for voting!
No. The money should go to life saving treatment. No contest.
nelliebear
9th Aug 2017
6
Thanks for voting!
Needing IVF is not a medical need , operations for cancer and serious illnesses and conditions are , the NHS is for sick and ailing !
jeanmark
9th Aug 2017
0
Thanks for voting!
As you are probably aware Wilf, I was a nurse for 47 years, a number of those in management positions. I agree there is a great deal of bureaucracy but the increase in managers is often needed because of advances in services provided. My two most expensive outgoings year on year were drugs followed by staff, which one do you think I had to restrict? Reducing management posts would only have increased my workload as I was also responsible for clinical work and teaching, I thus need help with delivering clinical services.

I agree Jeremy Hunt is definitely not the best person to help the NHS 'get a grip'!!
Wilf
9th Aug 2017
2
Thanks for voting!
Why do you think Hunt is not right Jean...my view is he is not liked or trusted and is a bully
Marley444
9th Aug 2017
6
Thanks for voting!
This is a tricky one. I have had a concern for a long time now, that women nowadays seem to have forgotten about their biological time clock in regards to fertility. In my day, we had the view that you had your babies before you were 30, but nowadays the view seems to have shifted to older ... the only thing that hasn't changed is how long women are fertile for. That in my mind is why the demand for IVF has risen, so should the NHS fund this personal choice? I'm not so sure
jeanmark
9th Aug 2017
3
Thanks for voting!
Whilst understanding your viewpoint, it isn't just women over 30 having problems. Many younger women have difficulties for a number of reasons and in some cases try for many years before being considered for the IVF route.

Some would argue that wanting a child is a natural thing but the choice has been taken away if unable to conceive, so is it really a choice?

I believe the problems lies in it being a post code lottery as to whether you have a 'choice'.

Having said all of that, can the NHS really afford to fund IVF when it may be unable to fund other medical conditions? It is now a bottomless pit and can surely only get worse.

Community Terms & Conditions

Content standards

These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.

You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.

Contributions must:

be accurate (where they state facts); be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.

Contributions must not:

contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or promote sexually explicit material; or promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or be likely to deceive any person; or be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or promote any illegal activity; or be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.

Nurturing a safe environment

Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.

We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!