IVF on the NHS: a debate (topic split)

I blame the economy.

Yeah, that sucks too!

I don't even think you can adopt an infant if you're over 40 in the UK.  I believe there's a 40 year above the child's age limit.

In good news, they've figured out a way to make IVF treatments more effective and to cut down on multiple births by testing the eggs.  Basically, it's going to be a process in most cases where one egg is implanted and hopefully around normal risk of miscarriage.

ETA: I somehow managed to skip a load of posts in this thread, so this might have been brought up already, and my post seemed a bit less out of the thread of discussion from where I mistakenly left off from reading.   

I really can't be bothered spending any more time justifying myself anymore. Obviously I'm a cruel, heartless and inhuman monster with invalid views. Trying to argue objectively about an emotive issue, particularly when public funding is involved, makes me a cold-hearted automaton I guess. Don't bother to reply to this- I will be ignoring this board. In fact, I may just ignore the board full stop.

I hope you don't ignore the board, as I've found your responses very thoughtful. Btw, I don't think you're heartless for your views at all. I find them valid and worth an honest discussion. You are right in that IVF is elective. Should it be a covered treatment or not? I know that in the US most insurances treat infertility, but not IVF.

I find them valid and worth an honest discussion.

Discussion, however, implies that each and the other are even willing to entertain that their paradigm might be different from someone else's, not flouncing off because others disagree.

I know that in the US, most insurances consider treat infertility, but not IVF.

But we were talking about healthcare here in the UK, the NHS in particular.

Discussion, however, implies that each and the other are even willing to entertain that their paradigm might be different from someone else's, not flouncing off because others disagree.

Not attacking anyone..but I think that could apply to pretty much Everyone's posts on this thread.

Its definitely an emotive topic... 

Though we figured that out- up around page 8 where it was determined it would be an sensitve and emotional topic and probably end up badly... !!!

Not attacking anyone..but I think that could apply to pretty much Everyone's posts on this thread.

No one's flounced, however, excepting one.  Not attacking anyone . . . 

Any chance of this being split and we can go back to a debate on the merits (or not) f the NHS, and IVF can be debated elsewhere?

Ok, I've split this topic from the original.  Sorry if I've included the wrong posts, but it was a bloody long topic and each post had to be read.  If you find one that belongs back in the original topic, please report to mod.

Thank you, Cait.

No problemo! 

International adoptions are even more expensive then doing IVF privately. I am pretty sure my friend spent around $30k. So this option is only for people with money. Adopting a baby nationally is almost impossible because there are more families waiting to adopt then babies that are giving up for adoption. There are a lot of older children in foster care but most of these children have special needs because they have been thru abuse or neglet. You really need to be ready to adopt an older child and know that they are going to need special care. It is wounderful that there are people that are willing to do that but I do understand that most people would prefere to adopt a baby.
A lot of people just can't afford adoption or IVF. It's great that at least some people in the UK get to try IVF without going into debt.