Originally posted by Angry: Personally, I'd remove all IVF treatment. There are plenty of kids needing adopting if you're that desperate.
I can accept this upto a certain point however having your own biological offspring is the best feeling in the world. If done correctly it is the product of the love between two people (or in many cases a product of a 2 ltr bottle of strongbow!) I don't think it is a strong enough arguement to deprive people of having kids if there is a chance just because of the number of potential adopted kids.
Originally posted by 2shy: Waste of money IMO, childbirth isnt a right , its a gift, and if that gift has not been bestowed on you, then its just not meant to be.
Then would you apply the same principle on people that receive medication for illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, lukemia etc; when you boil it down infertility is a medical condition which requires treatment to rectify
Originally posted by 2shy: Waste of money IMO, childbirth isnt a right , its a gift, and if that gift has not been bestowed on you, then its just not meant to be.
When will the idiots who run this country get it?
Oil is going to run out, when oil runs, the amount of food the world can produce and transport will drop dramatically, and the UK can't sustain anything like 60,000,000 and whether the government is still elected or not, it will have to implement population control including one-family-one-child and probably mass exportation of illegal immigrants to stop food riots.
And what do our leaders do?
- build more roads - build more airport runways - invite in ever increasing numbers of immigrants - encourage people to have more children - keep telling the public "we have a choice - we can keep burning more or more oil, but if we do we'll face a bit of nice warm and a few meters shorter trip to the seaside (some choice!)
These politicians will end up in jail charge for gross neglect!
Originally posted by Angry: Personally, I'd remove all IVF treatment. There are plenty of kids needing adopting if you're that desperate.
I can accept this upto a certain point however having your own biological offspring is the best feeling in the world. If done correctly it is the product of the love between two people (or in many cases a product of a 2 ltr bottle of strongbow!) I don't think it is a strong enough arguement to deprive people of having kids if there is a chance just because of the number of potential adopted kids.
I understand all that, but still don't see it as a right.
OK point taken, then things such progressive pressure blindness that can be cured with very expensive eye drops. Deafness with surgical implants. Irregualr bone development treatment with surgery, the list goes on. Why should these people be treated for something that will not kill them when people that cannot have babies are left hung out to dry?
Originally posted by 2shy: Waste of money IMO, childbirth isnt a right , its a gift, and if that gift has not been bestowed on you, then its just not meant to be.
Then would you apply the same principle on people that receive medication for illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, lukemia etc; when you boil it down infertility is a medical condition which requires treatment to rectify
Of course not, infertility is not a life threatening illness, it's something that has to be accepted by the person it's happeing to. Sometimes life is not fair, but it is most certainly not life threatening.
OK point taken, then things such progressive pressure blindness that can be cured with very expensive eye drops. Deafness with surgical implants. Irregualr bone development treatment with surgery, the list goes on. Why should these people be treated for something that will not kill them when people that cannot have babies are left hung out to dry?
So if you had a deaf child who could be cured, or a 30 something woman who wanted a baby and could not naturally SO FAR, and you could treat one, which one would you treat? the child suffering or the woman wanting a baby?
I feel depserately sorry for childless couples who want children, but I just don't understand how so much money can be deicated to this when life saving (of life-extending) treatments are denied to others.
OK point taken, then things such progressive pressure blindness that can be cured with very expensive eye drops. Deafness with surgical implants. Irregualr bone development treatment with surgery, the list goes on. Why should these people be treated for something that will not kill them when people that cannot have babies are left hung out to dry?
So if you had a deaf child who could be cured, or a 30 something woman who wanted a baby and could not naturally SO FAR, and you could treat one, which one would you treat? the child suffering or the woman wanting a baby?
That is irrelevant because I would never be able to make that decision. Treatment if available should be available for those that need it regardles of the nature of the condition.
Infertility treatment should be private only, and not on the NHS, who are stretched enough these days.
Priorities need to be in place, and life enhancing treatments should be paramount, with sex changes, fertility treatment and so on, being the bottom of the pile.
Originally posted by lunarita: I feel depserately sorry for childless couples who want children, but I just don't understand how so much money can be deicated to this when life saving (of life-extending) treatments are denied to others.
It just seems all skewed somewhow.
In terms of cost it is not a huge amount compared to other conditions more life threatening conditions. But that aside we should not ignore all conditions and only focus on the ones that are life threatening this has thankfully never been the mentallity of the NHS
OK point taken, then things such progressive pressure blindness that can be cured with very expensive eye drops. Deafness with surgical implants. Irregualr bone development treatment with surgery, the list goes on. Why should these people be treated for something that will not kill them when people that cannot have babies are left hung out to dry?
So if you had a deaf child who could be cured, or a 30 something woman who wanted a baby and could not naturally SO FAR, and you could treat one, which one would you treat? the child suffering or the woman wanting a baby?
That is irrelevant because I would never be able to make that decision. Treatment if available should be available for those that need it regardles of the nature of the condition.
Thats was the answer I expected from you
HYPOTHETICALLY then, which would you choose if you could?
Originally posted by 2shy: Infertility treatment should be private only, and not on the NHS, who are stretched enough these days.
Priorities need to be in place, and life enhancing treatments should be paramount, with sex changes, fertility treatment and so on, being the bottom of the pile.
In your opinion and that is fine. I have a differing opinion because I could never imagine the pain and harm to a family not being able to conceive could cause. Where as this would never be a priority you cannot withdraw all funding for this because medical progression would be somewhat skewed if all funding was that selective.
I just think we need to get our priorities right, IVF should NEVER take priority over any other treatment that will help and already born and living person. They must come before a baby that may never be conceived or born.
OK point taken, then things such progressive pressure blindness that can be cured with very expensive eye drops. Deafness with surgical implants. Irregualr bone development treatment with surgery, the list goes on. Why should these people be treated for something that will not kill them when people that cannot have babies are left hung out to dry?
So if you had a deaf child who could be cured, or a 30 something woman who wanted a baby and could not naturally SO FAR, and you could treat one, which one would you treat? the child suffering or the woman wanting a baby?
That is irrelevant because I would never be able to make that decision. Treatment if available should be available for those that need it regardles of the nature of the condition.
Thats was the answer I expected from you
HYPOTHETICALLY then, which would you choose if you could?
I would choose the IVF treatments. I have a very good friend who is totally deaf and he has a fantastically full life and his condition holds him back in very few areas of his life. The couple that could not have a baby in alot of cases have had the one thing that they have always wanted taken away and a massive void where their baby should be. Obviously you will now respond with ahhh you would say that anyway. But given the chance this would be my decision.
in a priority of tax money use infertility is not a tax payer problem.
its like saying the nhs should give someone a bigger todger. when there is not enough money for life threating conditions people can pay for vanity exercises.
Originally posted by 2shy: I just think we need to get our priorities right, IVF should NEVER take priority over any other treatment that will help and already born and living person. They must come before a baby that may never be conceived or born.
I think the story is a little misleading. When they mean a priority they do not mean that it takes resources away from life saving treatments, so it will not be priority in that context.
If a Health authority has money ring-fenced for IVF [which is how it is supposed to work] then I think it is fair.
If Health Authorities are neing asked to redirect monies that would have been allocated elsewhere, to prioritise IVF, then I think it would be an absolute disgrace.
Originally posted by hardwon: If a Health authority has money ring-fenced for IVF [which is how it is supposed to work] then I think it is fair.
If Health Authorities are neing asked to redirect monies that would have been allocated elsewhere, to prioritise IVF, then I think it would be an absolute disgrace.
It is a ring fenced allocation of budget which is my point. Family care and sexual health must be included in the futre developemtn of the NHS
And my point is, if money is already ring-fenced, that budget has already been set.........making IVF a priority would suggest a further injection of resources.
Unless the additional funding, to enable prioritisation, comes directly from the Government - how else will a Health Authority manage to prioritise, unless they divert monies from other areas??
