IVF should be given sooner and to older women, says NICE

Status
Not open for further replies.
My natural stance is that I am inclined to agree with you.

But I am willing to be persuaded otherwise because there are other issues involved to do with the emotional well-being of the people wanting children. Perhaps, in those cases, they should be expected to pay for treatment themselves (creeping privatisation issues there though?!) and if they can't afford to pay, then maybe they can't afford to look after a resulting child either?

Andy 🙂
 
It is unlikely to happen in real life. There is no extra money being provided, and these are only guidelines. Local PCTs (soon to be CCGs) will still apply their own, probably more strict, criteria so the postcode lottery will remain.
 
As someone who's had several cycles of (unsuccessful) NHS funded IVF, I'd agree with you. What shocked me at the time was the ease with which our IVF treatment was funded, while at the same time I was battling to get funding for a pump, and watching diabetes patient education services being cut.

Infertility is truly awful, but I can't support funding for it being provided over that for chronic diseases. It doesn't make sense on a personal or a country-wide level.
 
Why the NHS has to ration care

Extending fertility treatment to older women sounds good in theory.

But the reality of it in a cash-strapped NHS in another matter.

NICE - the NHS body which recommends what should and should not be done - has suggested the age limit at which IVF is offered is increased from 39 to 42 in England and Wales.

But already those working in the health service are raising concerns about how likely this is given that the majority of trusts are struggling to meet the current recommendations.

Dr Mike Dixon, of the NHS Alliance, which represents doctors, nurses and managers on the front line, perhaps summed it up best in his interview with the BBC's Today programme.

He said: "The problem with them [the recommendations] is that NICE does not pay the bill."

He then went on to add that if the NHS did everything NICE said it would be "bankrupt".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21519896
 
I could write something fairly rude here - but I'm going to control my fingers 🙂

LeeLee is absolutely right, most PCT's don't offer much help anyway even prior to this and I doubt anything will really change.

However, the number of barriers you have to jump through to get any kind of treatment is ridiculous 😡 So any rule change which makes it a less stressful process is a big plus in my book. The current rules on the NHS are a complete waste of time and money.

Our PCT at the time offered a single cycle of IVF-ICSI. That's pretty much guaranteed to fail since it takes monitoring and adjustments to medication to get things to work correctly. Also, investing slightly more money per cycle increases the success rate significantly. It's not a particularly enjoyable process, so I doubt anyone is going to do multiple cycles for fun.

You could argue that an infertile couple always have the option of either adopting or fostering (and many do) but that is also a very long and stressful process. Very few adopting couples get babies and older children often can have emotional problems (which depending on the postcode lottery again is if you get training to deal with that).

I'd seriously take offence at anyone that suggested anyone should be penalised for something in their genetics.

Of course, trying to demonise a section of the public is the politicians favourite game. I mean all the fat Type 2's that gave themselves diabetes is probably up there with all those undeserving couples who really should of started a family when they were 16 or something! 🙄

btw; because of our useless PCT, my little boy is not quite worth his weight in gold at birth, but for many that is the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top