Where are you statistics regarding the age of the average woman who receives NHS IVF treatment?
I found the age limit on an NHS website. I said nothing about the average age of women who receive NHS treatment. The only comment I've made regarding age is that many people who go for IVF generally, NHS or otherwise, have fertility problems because they are trying to have their first children older. It is a scientific fact that the older you are, the more difficult it will be to conceive because your eggs are older and their viability is reduced. Yes, many people are fine, but many also aren't.
Where's is the evidence that women who conceive using assisted conception experience more complications than women who fall pregnant naturally.
The issue of complications is again to do with age, which is what I was specifically talking about, and the reasons for infertility. In many cases women who are infertile have a variety of problems that make it difficult not only to conceive, but to carry a healthy pregnancy to term.
This link talks about the increased risk of complication for older mothers. Here are some more stories about the risks associated with IVF:
Placent praeviaAn academic article stating that IVF pregnancies are at greater risk of obstetric problemsAnd anotherAnd anotherIt should be added that
another study found that it was not the IVF itself that caused the problems, but the reasons for having IVF in the first place, i.e. the underlying fertility issues. If your body isn't able to carry a baby, it isn't healthy to force it.
What about younger mothers who are obese. Now I'll need to dig it out, but there's plenty of evidence that they have more complications during pregnancy and delivery. Maybe we should force them not to conceive until they're brought their weight into line.
They do have more complications, but many of them also have trouble conceiving and try for IVF, and are forced to lose weight before being considered for treatment. It isn't really possible or necessarily desirable to prevent wanted natural conception, but we can draw the line at providing unnatural conception.
Using your reasoning, however, nobody NEEDS to smoke or overeat, either. It's elective behaviour to pick up fags or not exercise or eat too much.
Nobody NEEDS to drink alcohol and become violent. It's a real burden on the taxpayer when they wind up in A&E with alcohol-related injuries, shall we just not treat them because their selfish need to get p*ssed is cost-prohibitive?
What about cancer drugs that are not going to cure the patient, but will extend their lives for a few months?
Is it selfish of them, to want to live that much longer and be such a burden on the taxpayer? I mean, these drugs are not curative, they're just prolonging the inevitable. So by your reckoning, since they don't really NEED to live longer, shall we not treat them, too?
Again, with all of these examples, it's treatment for people who are already alive and ill/injured. Treatment to create life that does not yet exist is quite different. Yes, it is elective to live an unhealthy lifestyle, but not all obesity is due to poor lifestyle. In the case of smokers, using the NHS to help people quit is good use of money, but giving a smoker a lung transplant is not, and smokers are forced to quit smoking before they will be considered, as drinkers can't get liver transplants (oh, except George Best of course
). As for drunks, if they hurt themselves to the extent of needing a hospital visit, they should have to pay a fine to cover the hassle!
I already said that life-saving and life-extending drugs are justifiable, so why you're putting up that straw man I don't know. Preserving your own life is a need; creating a new one from your own loins is not.
