IVF on the NHS - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

IVF on the NHS

lumoruk Avatar
banned6y, 1m agoPosted 6 years, 1 month ago
Sorry for watching day time TV but it was my meal break, anyway the woman on the left had just let slip she had bought a brand new car, then woman on the right was saying wouldn't you rather have a baby than a new car?

Oh did she look so damn stupid saying oh I need a car to work, well no she could use a bus or walk or cycle or even buy a cheap 2nd hand car.

Holmes had to ask her twice why she thought it was her right to have a baby but she couldn't answer.
Tags:
Other Links From NHS:
lumoruk Avatar
banned6y, 1m agoPosted 6 years, 1 month ago
Options

All Comments

(19) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Great.
2 Likes #2
yeah I saw that too.

IVF should be available on the NHS.
banned 1 Like #3
bossyboots
yeah I saw that too.IVF should be available on the NHS.

But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it also passes on your bad non baby making genes.
banned 2 Likes #4
IVF should be available on the NHS....why shouldn't low paid workers like nurses, teachers, cleaners be allowed to have a baby just because they can't afford the thousands of pounds it costs to have it privately.
4 Likes #5
lumoruk
bossyboots
yeah I saw that too.IVF should be available on the NHS.


But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it also passes on your bad non baby making genes.


There are many reasons that couples cant have a baby naturally - not always something in their genes - could be caused by having cancer treatment. You could then go down the whole route of why then spend money on obese people, drug addicts, alcoholics - money wasted some would say
banned 1 Like #6
lumoruk
bossyboots
yeah I saw that too.IVF should be available on the NHS.
But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it also passes on your bad non baby making genes.

Oh I get it now....just trolling
2 Likes #7
I am more concerned that eamonn holmes is still on television tbh
1 Like #8
It wasnt that long ago you posted up a thread concerned that your wife wasnt yet pregnant - thankfully nature has worked for you now, but what if it didnt and IVF was your only option.

Would you just have paid for IVF out of your own money or would you have applied for IVF via the NHS.

Pretty sure the answer there is obvious
banned#9
lumoruk
[quote=slamdunkin]Oh I get it now....just trolling

It is certainly not out of reach of nurses and teachers, I earn less than them and could easily afford IVF if I wanted to.
#10
barky1 person likes this
I am more concerned that eamonn holmes is still on television tbh

I heard he's applied for a job on price drop tv!
banned#11
bossyboots
Pretty sure the answer there is obvious

That's like asking would I like to put my savings into a 2% interest rate account, or a 10% ISA. I would because the option is there. I'm saying the option shouldn't be there.
2 Likes #12
IVF should not be avaliable on the NHS imo. Its not life saving, and babies are not a right. If you are desperate then you will find the money, if you can't then adopt!
banned 3 Likes #13
bossyboots1 person likes this
yeah I saw that too.

IVF should be available on the NHS.


No it shouldn't. Having a child isn't a right and unfortunately not everyone is privileged to have one. I don't want to get into natural selection and 'survival of the fittest' because I believe the cost reasons alone are enough.
#14
bossyboots1 person likes this
lumoruk
bossyboots
yeah I saw that too.IVF should be available on the NHS.
But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it also passes on your bad non baby making genes.
There are many reasons that couples cant have a baby naturally - not always something in their genes - could be caused by having cancer treatment. You could then go down the whole route of why then spend money on obese people, drug addicts, alcoholics - money wasted some would say

Think this is a tough one to be honest, as i would have said IVF should be widely available, however i do think that the couples going for it should make a contribution towards it.
And from bb's previous point, obese people should stop eating pies and drug addicts and alcoholics locked in a room till they are over it (joke) :{
#15
bossyboots3 people like this
lumoruk
bossyboots
yeah I saw that too.IVF should be available on the NHS.

But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it also passes on your bad non baby making genes.

There are many reasons that couples cant have a baby naturally - not always something in their genes - could be caused by having cancer treatment. You could then go down the whole route of why then spend money on obese people, drug addicts, alcoholics - money wasted some would say

I personally dont think it should be on the NHS, as already stated its not life saving, just a choice in life, however it should be more reasonably affordable, and the critera should be stricter, in relation to health, age etc, to increase the change of it actually happening rather than wasting the money, plus there is the heartache for the person, because they are too over weight/ in their 40's/50's
1 Like #16
tracyhay
bossyboots3 people like this
lumoruk
bossyboots
yeah I saw that too.IVF should be available on the NHS.


But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it also passes on your bad non baby making genes.


There are many reasons that couples cant have a baby naturally - not always something in their genes - could be caused by having cancer treatment. You could then go down the whole route of why then spend money on obese people, drug addicts, alcoholics - money wasted some would say


I personally dont think it should be on the NHS, as already stated its not life saving, just a choice in life, however it should be more reasonably affordable, and the critera should be stricter, in relation to health, age etc, to increase the change of it actually happening rather than wasting the money, plus there is the heartache for the person, because they are too over weight/ in their 40's/50's


I didnt realise that the NHS only dealt with "life saving" conditions oO
3 Likes #17
bossyboots
didnt realise that the NHS only dealt with "life saving" conditions oO
Quite so.
Clearly the NHS is in the business of both making people better e.g. antibiotics for a bacterial infection and making their lives better e,g correcting congenital deformities.
I think it is perfectly acceptable for IVF treatment to be paid for as much as a triple heart by-pass or a pack of condoms. Let us not forget that they do not accept onto an IVF programme those who are unlikely to succeed.

We are doing our own evolution now. I guess that my children are a better bet for the future of the human race ,as I survived whooping cough and measles. than most of the present population who haven't, but then again one of them would have died if it wasn't for modern medicine. You cannot apply Darwinian evolution to the human population in a simplistic way.
#18
chesso3 people like this
bossyboots
didnt realise that the NHS only dealt with "life saving" conditions oO

Quite so.
Clearly the NHS is in the business of both making people better e.g. antibiotics for a bacterial infection and making their lives better e,g correcting congenital deformities.
I think it is perfectly acceptable for IVF treatment to be paid for as much as a triple heart by-pass or a pack of condoms. Let us not forget that they do not accept onto an IVF programme those who are unlikely to succeed.

We are doing our own evolution now. I guess that my children are a better bet for the future of the human race ,as I survived whooping cough and measles. than most of the present population who haven't, but then again one of them would have died if it wasn't for modern medicine. You cannot apply Darwinian evolution to the human population in a simplistic way.


hmmm perhaps, but a lot of the infertility problems are caused (argueably) by how our lifestyles have changed, having a child is not going to make you "better", which is what the NHS is for, to make things better be it with antibiotics or for a deformitey, there are other ways of having children though maybe not yours by blood, but we all know that doesnt count for as much as it used to anymore.
#19
I dont think IVF should be made available due to the cost - as said a child is not a right IMO. Also, as a child who grew up in 'care' I think that encouraging more couples to opt for adoption (be that pricing them out of IVF) cant be anything but a good thing.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!