Groups

    IVF on the NHS

    Banned
    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.

    19 Comments

    Great.

    yeah I saw that too.

    IVF should be available on the NHS.

    Original Poster Banned

    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

    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.

    lumoruk

    But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it … 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

    lumoruk

    But it doesn't save lives or cure an illness. You can adopt babies it … 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

    I am more concerned that eamonn holmes is still on television tbh

    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

    Original Poster Banned

    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.

    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!

    Original Poster Banned

    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.

    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

    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.

    bossyboots1 person likes this

    There are many reasons that couples cant have a baby naturally - not … 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)

    bossyboots3 people like this

    There are many reasons that couples cant have a baby naturally - not … 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

    tracyhay

    I personally dont think it should be on the NHS, as already stated its … 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

    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.

    chesso3 people like this

    Quite so. Clearly the NHS is in the business of both making people better … 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.

    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
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Back to school: what's your views on your kids uniform and piercing rules e…27124
      2. Surprise! The HUKD Summer Flamedeer Hunt 2017 **OFFICIAL THREAD** (trading …4862357
      3. 41% of 40-60 year olds do not go for a brisk walk of >10 minutes A MONTH!44
      4. Just heard this...2 ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ congrats to all on 392k ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★7764702

      See more discussions