Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Never understood it.
We need all the people we can get.
I think it's fair enough if a stable couple want to have kid together.
why not eh
they advised me to get a tattoo of a bulldog wrapped in the red hand of Ulster and to wear a balaclava...
Turned out I'd gone for UVF treatment by mistake.
however that is not the case and so I am in the unfortunate position of having to agree with you
Don't really think that having kids is some god given right; couples who can't have kids can indulge in their paternal/maternal instincts by adopting or fostering. Get a pug or something, idk.
But ivf is not even all that reliable and i think the nhs has other priorities i think if i decide to have a kid and discover i can't, i'd give ivf one shot (paid for myself) before giving up gracefully and getting a phalanx of pugs and an Annyong or two.
*dailymail* and sexchanges for perverts.
ONE chance on The NHS seems very fair. As an NHS worker for the last fifteen years I see smokers often, yes unfortunately often, having a fag outside the hospital in a wheelchair due to a leg amputation attached to a drip and possibly oxygen. Any objections anyone has, should not be due to economics nor the fact that a couple wanting a child would put themselves through such a procedure for any other reason than they want to start a family where a child would be loved and cared for.
understanding basic human kindness; no others. Ever.
if IVF was only available to those who went private...
(Actually, what are the demographics on its use? I think it's used disproportionately by those from the upper/middle tier as they're much more likely to try for children later in life. I dunno.)
massively impacting an already unstable economy.
I'd like to think that we should give all couples the opportunity to try for a child, but that has to be balanced against cost and effectiveness of the treatment.
It also opens up an interesting debate as to what the NHS is for. It's a bit of a regressive argument, but would treatment such as IVF be part of the Health Service if it had been around when it was founded?
On balance, I think the country would be better suited (though I know this is a budgeting impossibility) if the same money could be put into speeding the adoption system up- it's just taken some family friends two year to adopt a child, which seems to me an absolute joke...
But of course adoption isn't for everyone... (agh)
creating a little future taxpayer. Not sure what the cost of a one shot treatment is, or the success rate.