Why are there so many infertile women anyway? It’s not an accident. Think about it.

To qualify for treatment couples must meet specific eligibility criteria.

In particular, women must be aged between 23 and 39 with no children from the current relationship.

Over a quarter of local health bodies are offering the recommended three free cycles of fertility treatment to couples trying to have a child.

The critism is that it has not been implemented across the country.
I work in the N.H.S in this area. Hospital’s here do compete
Women in their 40′s can have one free cycle and medication.

Do you all know that we can pay for I.V.F as well?

We are trying to give women 1-3 cycles(because if you don’t conceive then ,your chances drop).

The N.H.S has never included everything.
It’s not really rationing,should that 8 babies women with other children
be treated with tax payers money?
Should we be helping 60 yr old women to get pregnant,they are tax payers as well.
Gay couples using N.H.S ,I.V.F.,should the tax payer pay for that?

There isn’t a ‘right’ to have a child.
We are in a strange new world when it comes to fertility.

Metygirl, you say you don’t want the tax payer to judge you.

It’s because of tax payers like me that women here can have free I.V.F before losing their houses to fund private clinic’s, who unlike us want to make money .

British health system: IVF eligibility a whole six months….

it’s not that easy. it’s cost prohibitive.

the pool of “waiting children” consists of older children. These are often children who have been in foster care for years, who may never have bonded with anyone or may have bonded with someone only to be torn away. These children often have severe psychological and emotional problems. Studies show that those adopted at infancy bond normally with their adoptive parents, but the older the child gets, the more difficult bonding becomes (on the part of both the parent and the child).

If you have the money to adopt from a pregnant woman willing to give up the child… keep in mind the birth mother has to choose you. Any woman giving up her child is going to choose who she thinks can offer her child the best life… so you’d better fit her ideal, she will judge your: wealth, marriage, religion, lifestyle etc. and hope she doesn’t change her mind and choose someone else, or keep it herself, or the birth father shows up a demanding his rights.

you have no idea what the birth family’s history is… mental illness, drugs, alcohol, smoking. what kind of prenatal care did the birth mother get? Smoking, drugs, and alcohol are the rule, not the exception.

We all hear about people who purposely choose to adopt special needs children, or children who have been years in the foster system. Hats off to them for taking on that challenge. But for someone who simply wants to have a family, these challenges can be overwhelming. Being a parent can be challenging enough, why start off with the cards stacked against you?

another arguement for the government staying out of healthcare… in the U.S. most insurance doesn’t cover any type of fertility treatment. women in the U.K.can get fertility treatment, they just have to pay for it. I’d like to make my own decisions on family and adoption without anyone else’s judgement getting in my way… especially my fellow tax-payer!

Get used to that approach as ObamaCare gets applied in the US. That’s exactly what “comparative effectiveness” mechanisms are meant to do — deny care based on the decisions of beancounters in Washington rather than decisions made by doctors and their patients.

I think you meant, rather than decisions made by insurers trying to make a profit by denying as many claims as possible.

From the beancounter

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 4:08 PM

That’s insane. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer at 46. She should have gotten mammograms earlier but missed a few years because of other problems she had. Still, if she’d had to wait until she was 50, it likely would have spread.

a capella on June 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM

As I mentioned, under the NHS mammograms are not permitted for women under age 50 and PSA tests are not routinely offered to men at all. In the UK my wife would have been dead 4 years before the NHS would have allowed her to have a mammogram. ‘Nuff said.

Easier to just adopt at that age.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:55 PM

I’d argue that it’s never “easy” to adopt. Both carry risks. The difference is many people believe having their own offspring is worth the risk.

Not all unborn who are diagnosed with Downs actually have it. Considering they only get one chance at IVF (with such a limited window), I believe more would rather have the baby than abort.

Trafalgar on June 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Our histories are identical in that regard. Diagnosis and successful treatment of both conditions has made huge advances in the last 15 years. I assume it will not be offered to certain groups under Obamacare.

You’re talking about a kid who is already someone else’s, not a kid without parents. All parents love their children, biological or not. But some people aren’t interested in parenting someone else’s biological children. That doesn’t mean they don’t love their own children, cause those people don’t adopt other people’s children.

It’s not selfish to want only your own kin in your own house. It’s normal.

Besides, what you’re saying could apply to even those who can have children without medical help. The bottom line is that most will choose to have their own if they can, and with advancements in science, it just means more people can.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:46 PM

The risk of having a baby with chromosomal disorders increase as a woman grows older. The most common of these disorders is Down syndrome, a combination of mental retardation and physical abnormalities caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.

They’re talking a pretty good likelihood of problems by 39.5-40. All I’m saying is, if you’ve waited this long, why risk it and if you’re the real selfish type, you’ll abort the kid. Easier to just adopt at that age.

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

You’re talking about a kid who is already someone else’s, not a kid without parents. All parents love their children, biological or not. But some people aren’t interested in parenting someone else’s biological children. That doesn’t mean they don’t love their own children, cause those people don’t adopt other people’s children.

It’s not selfish to want only your own kin in your own house. It’s normal.

Besides, what you’re saying could apply to even those who can have children without medical help. The bottom line is that most will choose to have their own if they can, and with advancements in science, it just means more people can.

How can a father sell his 5 year old son for sex?

People are evil if you will… What would the atheists refer to them as? Well, you get the idea. All the more reason not to trust men and women to run our lives.

Upstater85 on June 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Agreed

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

*facepalm*

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Are you Michael Jackson speaking from the grave?

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

I’m glad I’m NOT Michael Jackson,he’s EXTRA CRISPY right now.

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

How can a father sell his 5 year old son for sex?

People are evil if you will… What would the atheists refer to them as? Well, you get the idea. All the more reason not to trust men and women to run our lives.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

To be fair, he did say ‘any kid…that is theirs‘

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Yes. You do. Only you. Pay for everyone. Because you’re an illiterate ass.

LimeyGeek on June 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Actually we’ll all get to pay, under Obama, for women to play, do I want it, don’t I want it? Whatever I decide it’s YOUR dime.

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Are you Michael Jackson speaking from the grave?

To some people, yeah, another person’s biological kid is worth less. They want someone who will grow up to look like them and have innate, recognizable mannerism.

I personally disagree with that mentality and wish others did as well since there are so many children who need good parents, but you can’t force someone to think differently on this.

And your comment about paying for it is really more of a reason why the government shouldn’t be paying for any of it.

Esthier on June 29, 2009 at 3:37 PM

How could one not love ANY kid, natural or adopted that is theirs. I couldn’t comprehend such selfishness.

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Yes. You do. Only you. Pay for everyone. Because you’re an illiterate ass.

I’d still like to know, why not adopt?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Personal choice. Some people do adopt.

Just curious, since I’m a guy I can’t reason like a woman. Is an adopted kid worth less? Perhaps you can’t love an adopted kid as much as a natural born kid?

Jeff from WI on June 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM

To some people, yeah, another person’s biological kid is worth less. They want someone who will grow up to look like them and have innate, recognizable mannerism.

I personally disagree with that mentality and wish others did as well since there are so many children who need good parents, but you can’t force someone to think differently on this.

And your comment about paying for it is really more of a reason why the government shouldn’t be paying for any of it.