You have to read this.....arrrgggg!

[Mrs G]

Hi all

Just found this article and OMG am fuming!!! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ever-mind-blunders-taxpayers-picking-IVF.html
Who the f**k does she think she is??? "the NHS is a health not happiness service" I am also appalled by some of the comments made by readers on the article. Narrowminded, biggoted.....
There is also a poll in which currently only 38% of people think IVF should be avaialble on the NHS. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/polls/index.html

As if we didn't have a hard enough time already! This is why we need to stick together girls.

Kath xx

 

[CurlySue]

Unfortunately, some people are simply of this opinion. There are a lot of people out there in the world who think that way; people who simply do not understand the situation or do not think it warrants medical funding because infertility is not a life or death situation and is still considered elective treatment. These are the same people who would say "I have small boobs and elect for a boob job - that's my choice. Do I get that paid for on the NHS since they get their babies?"

It's best to just ignore narrow minded people like this. They're idiots, but I suppose they just think differently to us. Most of the time they're just trying to be controversial and using the 'freedom of speech' card in order to do so. Other times, they think they are being clever. I'm pretty sure 9 out of 10 of them would not be so quick to dismiss it if they could not have their own kids.

They're was a similar debate on Loose Women, I think it was. Just showed there was a divide in what people classify as 'necessary' treatment.

More disturbed about Baby P's mother linked on the right, tbh, saying her life is going to be one long party when she gets out of prison. There's a poster child for sterilisation if I ever saw one, but that's another matter entirely. She certainly made me question this great God people speak of when he gives her five children and deprives us of any at all.

 

[Dilek]

I havnt read the article yet, im a bit fragile this weekend. But i think people have a misunderstanding that women who have IVF are because they have waited long past 35yo because of there careers. Yes there are some of us like that but mainly its because we all have medical conditions that cause infertility. This was the reason IVF was invented to HELP US have children. I think the media play up on this as well and forget the real reason why IVF is needed on NHS.

 

[sparkle83]

I havent got much to add except 'what a bunch of t*****s'

 

[x_Rainbow_x]

i wish i never read that i hope they cant have kids the sick twats! some of them snobs wouldnt no hardship if it smacked the tossers in the face aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[CurlySue]

Before we started our infertility journey I did have a conversation with an older woman about IVF at one point and in a way I understood her bitterness. Her husband died of a very rare cancer and his treatment was not funded on the NHS. They were told they could go on a 'trial' where they had a 50/50 percent chance of receiving the drug which would help him or a placebo drug. Otherwise, they were told they would have to pay for his medication.

He died eight months later, having clearly received the placebo...

This couple, one of whom is a good friend of my mother, had also suffered infertility. They found out later on that the problem was most likely genetic. Her husband was a carrier for some kind of genetic disorder which predisposed him to the cancer which inevitably killed him. They had one 'go' of IVF after numerous miscarriages.

"Why did they pay for our IVF," she asked, "when they would not pay for Billy's treatment?"

A lot of people who are of this opinion share this thought. Why is IVF funded when life saving cancer treatment is not readily available? Childlessness is not an illness or a disability, they might argue. It's not a sickness, they might say.

it's not a case of IVF not warranting funding, however, more a case of the NHS allocating their resources better. No woman should have to be childless. But, no man should die of cancer when there is treatment available that the NHS refuse to pay for, either, and I can understandt the bitterness of a person who has lost her husband or a man who has lost his wife because of NHS refusals. "Is your need for a child more important than my need for my husband to live?" is the argument that is put forth a lot.

That's not our fault, though. That's the NHS's fault.

I suppose in that sense, I see both sides of the argument. Making it about 'tax payers money and a lifestyle choice' however is incredibly unfair.

 

[maz]

I haven't read the article ... but I can well imagine what it says. Every so often this crap comes out in the media and people who think they have a right to pass comment, do so. Why, going off the general argument that IVF is not a life threatening illness and therefore shouldn't be funded on the NHS, do the NHS provide free hearing aids, free casts for broken limbs, free glasses, etc, etc? Surely none of these are life threatening illnesses, and if the same argument were applied, should not be available on the NHS.

 

[CareBear]

I'm like CurlySue and can understand both points of view and even though I'm suffering with infertility I don't personally agree with IVF (for different reason's to the article) though obviously believe it is everyones choice. However what people who are commenting on this article don't realise is that the government will continue to fund IVF because they don't have enough children being born to keep paying for an aging population. Can you imagine how much worse this could get if IVF was refused on the NHS. And as for those in the comments that are saying adopt, what they do not realise is that this is not an easy option in the slightest nowadays and you are adopting children that have been removed from their home through neglect or abuse.

 

[CurlySue]

I want to adopt, I think. I'd LOVE to adopt. But, the process of adoption is long-winded, red taped and for some virtually impossible. It takes years. There are new 'schemes' involved now where a lot of adoptive parents have to agree to allow the child contact with his or her birth family which I find unbelievable. How can you ever be a mother to a child who still regularly sees the mother that gave him or her up?

If it was simple to 'just adopt' there wouldn't be so many children in care.

 

[Millnsy]

I haven't read the article - its in the daily mail which is generally full of bigoted NIMBY rubbish any way! Its like we've all said on here a hundred times before, noone really knows what's its like to go through infertility until they are sat in the driving seat like we all are. Unless you know what it feels like, I don't think anyone is really qualified to comment.

I agree with Curly Sue though and can see both sides of the argument. And then you have to start thinking about same sex couples being offered IVF is well, should that be funded? I just think that the NHS has a limited pot of money and they do what they can with it.

But we should let a bunch of narrow minded daily mail readers get to us, we are better than that!

 

[x_Rainbow_x]

makes me mad.. do they moan where "their" tax is paying for drunks who need new livers, and druggies that have to have life saving ops because they OD'ed... i bet they dont...

 

[Naya69]

i think its horrible ive put into the tax mans pockets over the years since leaving school and i know if i was in a situation where i couldnt have children and couldnt go private i would hope the nhs would fund it i can understnd people who say about the nhs paying for one thing but not the other but thats not the fault of the childless women if i had to vote i would vote yes to it being free on the nhs every women deserves the right to be a mother no matter how its done i just wish the person who wrote that article could understand whats its like to be infertile horrible cow xxx

 

[Nathyrra]

Articles like this really infuriate me. I'd be interested to know if this author is a mother herself. Not a happiness service? Oh so then depression shouldn't be funded by the NHS by that logic also?

There's huge holes in these arguments that piss me off, as Tracie stated. The biggest money eatting hole in the NHS are cigarettes. You don't choose to be infertile. When you smoke you are making that conscious decision to do it. So by this logic should the taxpayers not have to pay for all the smoker related treatment on NHS too? Afterall why should a taxpayer pay for someone elses habits. Huge holes. Grr wish I hadn't read it

The more shocking are actually the replies. Narrow minded t**ts, that I can only hope someday taste the shit they're spouting for themselves. Why don't all these women adopt? I'll adopt my foot in their asses. Really riles me. How can people be so fekking narrow minded and so sure of themselves over something they know NOTHING about.

Makes me utterly thankful I'm living in Germany right now where the country welcomes IVF with open arms through taxpaying means.

 

[chocci]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.......ok, if IVF is not on NHS, then we need to cross off a few more operations that are NHS funded:
Pinning back ears (because someone is worried their child will be picked on)
Boob jobs (because someone has a complex about them being big or small)
Tummy tucks (because someone cant control their appetite!)
Any surgerys for alcoholics, especially liver transplants
Any surgerys for the obese
Any surgerys for smokers where smoking caused their problems
AND ON AND ON AND ON....
Sound harsh but so is that article, i pay a hell of a lot of tax and NI and i have never had any treatment on the NHS, EVER, nothing, not one thing in 33 years!! I eat healthy, i dont smoke, i hardly drink........... i think there are far more treatments that should not be paid for on NHS before they contemplate not paying for IVF for people wanting a baby, many of whom more than pay for their treatments in their contributions over the years!!!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[Kelly9]

That article made me very mad, granted i live in Canada, but still how can people say such harsh things about a situation they obviously do not understand!

 

[JASMAK]

I want to adopt, I think. I'd LOVE to adopt. But, the process of adoption is long-winded, red taped and for some virtually impossible. It takes years. There are new 'schemes' involved now where a lot of adoptive parents have to agree to allow the child contact with his or her birth family which I find unbelievable. How can you ever be a mother to a child who still regularly sees the mother that gave him or her up?

If it was simple to 'just adopt' there wouldn't be so many children in care.

I know that I am sort of hijacking this thread, but I just wanted to say that this is exactly the reason why we didn't go through with adoption. We were told that family (not just the birth mother) can have visitation rights. Ummm...NO...the baby would have a NEW family. They didn't quite see it this way. This was through the ministry though, and I am sure private adoption has more options??? But, still, you are right...it's not black and white.

 

[Lyns]

I want to adopt, I think. I'd LOVE to adopt. But, the process of adoption is long-winded, red taped and for some virtually impossible. It takes years. There are new 'schemes' involved now where a lot of adoptive parents have to agree to allow the child contact with his or her birth family which I find unbelievable. How can you ever be a mother to a child who still regularly sees the mother that gave him or her up?

If it was simple to 'just adopt' there wouldn't be so many children in care.

I know that I am sort of hijacking this thread, but I just wanted to say that this is exactly the reason why we didn't go through with adoption. We were told that family (not just the birth mother) can have visitation rights. Ummm...NO...the baby would have a NEW family. They didn't quite see it this way. This was through the ministry though, and I am sure private adoption has more options??? But, still, you are right...it's not black and white.

I'm by no means an expert on this, but my best friend has just adopted two beautiful children. Siblings who have been taken away from their birth parent thankfully for reasons of neglect rather than abuse (I say thankfully, as its the lesser of two evils IYKWIM) However, their adotion process took less than two years from their initial enquiry to actually having the children move in with them, and to be fair was a smooth well-handled process. The original family is banned contact with the children, has no idea where they are (they're in a different part of the country) and will not be given any rights to visit.

We started out family quest together and both always wanted 2 children. She went through one IVF (successful, but they lost) and then decided to adopt. She's got her two children quicker than even she imagined...and I am delighted for her!

I just wanted to post this as it may give you a glimmer of hope that it can be done the way you'd like...they've had a beautiful journey so if you did decide to pursue it, you may find a way that works for you too.

 

[Mrs G]

Hey girls, thanks for all your replies. Sorry if I pi**ed anyone off reading the article, it just made so soooo mad I had to get it off my chest.

 

[CareBear]

I want to adopt, I think. I'd LOVE to adopt. But, the process of adoption is long-winded, red taped and for some virtually impossible. It takes years. There are new 'schemes' involved now where a lot of adoptive parents have to agree to allow the child contact with his or her birth family which I find unbelievable. How can you ever be a mother to a child who still regularly sees the mother that gave him or her up?

If it was simple to 'just adopt' there wouldn't be so many children in care.

Just wanted to say that it is rare that direct contact (ie the people being able to send letters directly or getting together on a day out / visit) is granted to Birth Parents, this is normally limited to siblings if there is a reason they haven't been placed with adoptive parents together. Normally contact is indirectly and by letter. By indirectly I mean that a system is setup in that a letter is sent into the agency who you adopted through and they pass it onto the birth family and vice versa.

 

[CurlySue]

I want to adopt, I think. I'd LOVE to adopt. But, the process of adoption is long-winded, red taped and for some virtually impossible. It takes years. There are new 'schemes' involved now where a lot of adoptive parents have to agree to allow the child contact with his or her birth family which I find unbelievable. How can you ever be a mother to a child who still regularly sees the mother that gave him or her up?

If it was simple to 'just adopt' there wouldn't be so many children in care.

Just wanted to say that it is rare that direct contact (ie the people being able to send letters directly or getting together on a day out / visit) is granted to Birth Parents, this is normally limited to siblings if there is a reason they haven't been placed with adoptive parents together. Normally contact is indirectly and by letter. By indirectly I mean that a system is setup in that a letter is sent into the agency who you adopted through and they pass it onto the birth family and vice versa.

It says in the information leaflet I picked up that it was becoming more commonplace as they feel it benefits the child. That's another problem. It's mostly children of five plus that are adopted and I don't think I'd want to do that.