IVF on the NHS: a debate (topic split)

Superl99, just wondering if your opinion on IVF and other assisted conception is because you don't think NHS funds should be spent on it, or is it a moral objection?

Well, I don't know if 'moral' objection is the right phrase, but I am against IVF in principle, yes. However, it does exist and that isn't going to change, so it's pointless to argue with stopping entirely. I definitely don't think it should be an NHS service because I don't think pregnancy is essential in the same way treatment of injuries and illness is essential.

Do you feel the same about, for example, reconstructive surgery for breast cancer victims who have had mastectomies, or cosmetic plastic suregery and skin grafts for accident or burn victims?


Vicky

I think Super199 has the right to refuse IVF because of her own reasons and opinions...probably as much as someone who chooses to have IVF for their own reasons and opinions.

I am neutral on the debate.

Personally...myself, even as a child I have always enjoyed the thought of adopting. I don't think that would give me any less of a "maternal instinct" because the child is not biologically mine.

I have a friend who is on her 5th attempt at IVF ( partially paid by the NHS ) and I question her mental stability now from having her hopes raised then dashed all the time.  At what point does the NHS say to a patient enough is enough.

Well, I don't know if 'moral' objection is the right phrase, but I am against IVF in principle, yes. However, it does exist and that isn't going to change, so it's pointless to argue with stopping entirely. I definitely don't think it should be an NHS service because I don't think pregnancy is essential in the same way treatment of injuries and illness is essential.

Objecting to IVF while still thinking it's ok to have your own bio kids is morally inconsistent. Either it's selfish to have biological children or it is not. If it is, it's selfish wether you can do it the old fashioned way, or have to take extreme measures to achieve it.

Everything else is semantics.

Objecting to IVF while still thinking it's ok to have your own bio kids is morally inconsistent. Either it's selfish to have biological children or it is not

That's ridiculous. Procreation is a natural process and necessary to the continuation of the species. Some people need to have children for humanity to continue. I argue that it is the right of the species to breed, but not of any one individual.

Do you feel the same about, for example, reconstructive surgery for breast cancer victims who have had mastectomies, or cosmetic plastic suregery and skin grafts for accident or burn victims?

Reconstructive surgery for people who are disfigured is part of treatment, particularly in the case of burn victims who are also more prone to infections if they don't have reconstructive surgery. It is giving further health and quality of life to people who are already alive without causing new life to be created. Is it really so hard to understand the distinction? Are people going to spend all day throwing hypotheticals at me based on ignoring that distinction?

It is giving further health and quality of life to people who are already alive without causing new life to be created. Is it really so hard to understand the distinction? Are people going to spend all day throwing hypotheticals at me based on ignoring that distinction?

People see your point of view, they are not ignoring this distinction as you see it.  What they're saying is that to them, your distinction doesn't apply, they don't agree with it.  What they're trying to explain is that further quality of life to someone who is alive and here and suffering from infertility is to get medical treatment for that, same as reconstructive surgery or drugs that prolong lives.  And they do not see reproducing as a right but as a priviledge.

And they do not see reproducing as a right but as a priviledge.

If it's a privilege, why do you want the NHS to pay for it?

If it's a privilege, why do you want the NHS to pay for it?

Because much of medical care is just that.  Reconstructive sugery, you can live without it, but it's a priviledge.  A few extra months with your family, you could die without it, it's a priviledge.

So when you start limiting healthcare based on value judgements like yours, then where do you draw the line, because everyone's line or 'distinction' is different.  For some, it's reproduction, for others it's anything cosmetic, for others it's anything lifestyle-afflicted, etc.

Reconstructive surgery for people who are disfigured is part of treatment, particularly in the case of burn victims who are also more prone to infections if they don't have reconstructive surgery. It is giving further health and quality of life to people who are already alive without causing new life to be created. Is it really so hard to understand the distinction? Are people going to spend all day throwing hypotheticals at me based on ignoring that distinction?

This is the first hypothetical I have 'thrown' at you, and I asked as I wish to understand where you are coming from.  I think now that I do.

A woman does not need her breasts.  They are a luxury item.  But you state that you would support the NHS funding reconstructive surgery on a cancer patient who has has a mastectomy as it would "It is giving further...quality of life to people who are already alive".

You then ask that we see the distinction between this and having a child, and I think this is where there is a fundamental difference which probably can't be resolved.

I would consider having a child as something which would improve *my* quality of life, just as you might consider your reconstuctive surgery to improve the quality of your life.  I see no distinction.  I know how much I want to have children, and bear those children myself, and I know how painful and psychologically scarring it would be if I can't.  I fear not having children more than I fear death or illness. I doubt that I am the only woman who feels this strongly.  

You need to realise that this is a massively emotional thing for some women, and because it is not for you you simply can't understand why many of us consider this to be something which is so fundamental, and why we don't see the distinction you are trying to make.

(Just realise that this is exactly what expat has said!)

Vicky

In many cases reconstructive surgery is life prolonging because it actually can prevent other health problems from occurring or will make the person more easily able to do work or be involved in society. If it is purely cosmetic with no health benefits it should be done privately. Breast reduction surgery because large breasts are causing back and spine problems, NHS, breast enlargement because you feel self-conscious, private. Life-prolonging drugs, e.g. for cancer, are beneficial because sometimes the time is useful because sometimes new developments in drug treatments relevant to that condition occur, or it even just gives time for affairs to be settled, which is important particularly when children are involved and assets/care issues are complex.

Many of the posts here seem to have a strong sense of entitlement towards reproduction- that everyone is entitled to reproduce no matter what it takes and that the state should pay for it. Sounds like those people think it's a right to me.

So if a woman has a mastectomy, she is free from the cancer and reconstructive surgery on that breast would be entirely for cosmetic purposes, you think that she should not get that surgery on the NHS but should be made to go private?

Vicky

Many of the posts here seem to have a strong sense of entitlement towards reproduction- that everyone is entitled to reproduce no matter what it takes and that the state should pay for it. Sounds like those people think it's a right to me.

it appears that way to you - sorry, breasfeeding baby on lap and typing one-handed, because you do not value it the way some do.  similarly, someone who wants a breast englargement because of what you consider self-consciousness (or a reduction, for that matter) may actually experience depression or self-harm or worse because of how they feel about their bodies and so they feel their quality of life and health will be improved by the surgery because of their values.

so when you make distinctions based on what you personally value, you have to accept that what others value just as highly or highly enough to make a distinction like yours may be different.

that is why the NHS leaves some discretion on what it will and will not cover in instances like cosmetic surgery adn the like.

Vicky, it was the first one you threw, but not the first one on this thread.

I would consider having a child as something which would improve *my* quality of life, just as you might consider your reconstuctive surgery to improve the quality of your life.  I see no distinction.  I know how much I want to have children, and bear those children myself, and I know how painful and psychologically scarring it would be if I can't.  I fear not having children more than I fear death or illness. I doubt that I am the only woman who feels this strongly.

Have you asked yourself why this is the case? People seem to just accept that it's just this way and that's that and it's rude and insensitive to even ask, but I really do wonder why people are so desperate to have their own biological children. The fact that people are seeing it as a quality of life issue for the parents seems to suggest that it is not about the child as about the parents getting what they want.

Have you asked yourself why this is the case?

No, I haven't. And I don't believe I need to.  I am a woman, and I believe it is natural for me to have these feelings (that doesn't mean that I think it is somehow 'unnatural' not to, by the way).

People seem to just accept that it's just this way and that's that and it's rude and insensitive to even ask, but I really do wonder why people are so desperate to have their own biological children.

And I wonder why people like horror films, and don't cry at sad movies, and watch golf.  So?  We are all made differently, with different emotions, and different needs and wants.  The joy of human nature.  It doesn't mean I think that they are wrong and I am right.

The fact that people are seeing it as a quality of life issue for the parents seems to suggest that it is not about the child as about the parents getting what they want.

It is about both of these things.  People (including you) wouldn't consider having children if there wasn't an element of it improving and enriching your life, so this is a selfish act.  But, as has been said, if you thought that the priority was the child, then you should adopt and not consider having a child naturally.

Vicky

I agree that there is no need to ask the question- until you find you can't do it naturally and must rely on technology and the taxpayer to do it. Then I think it is valid and important to ask why it is so essential for that child to be biologically yours. Do you think that adopting a child wouldn't enrich your life just as much? Why must it have your genes or come from your uterus? I think questions like this really should be asked. Yes, we have an evolutionary imperative, but we overcome plenty of other evolutionary imperatives to get by in modern society.