Fertility treatment could soon be far more widely available on the NHS. Infertile women under 40 could be offered up to six cycles of IVF at a potential cost of �15,000 a patient.
The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) said it was an attempt to set national standards for fertility treatment to end the existing "postcode lottery" for women.
One in six couples have fertility problems and there are there are 27,000 IVF attempts in Britain every year.
Should IVF treatment be paid for by the NHS? Tell us what you think.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:
 |  All we ask for is a fair chance and this is a step in the right direction  |
I have a wonderful son following infertility treatment and find it hurtful to think that so many suggest he shouldn't exist. Prior to him, I had four miscarriages and to find that I couldn't then conceive and carry a baby to term without help was devastating. People say that infertility isn't life threatening but I felt suicidal with grief for the babies I had lost and the babies I would never have. Infertility investigations and treatment are not an easy choice. I was fortunate to get as far as I did with NHS funding which we have always been immensely grateful for and have never taken for granted. The waiting lists for NHS infertility clinics will still be long and the whole process will still be an emotional rollercoaster with no guarantees at the end. But all we ask for is a fair chance and this is a step in the right direction.
Becky, UK
If we don't have enough money in the NHS, then it's about time we started to ask our elected representatives to start running the system a darn sight better than they have done for the previous ten - fifteen years. Those who say no are entitled to state their opposition to it, but do they have to be so downright cruel with their comments? Good luck to those who are undergoing this treatment, on the NHS or private.
Deborah, England
It's not just IVF but all the other "glamour" treatments that get the funding. Maybe we need to cut back on some of these (or pay more tax) for a few years and put more money into primary and preventative treatments like dental checks/polishes, eye tests, vaccinations etc. Try to get a healthier population by catching problems when they are relatively cheaper to treat. Eventually we may have the funding available to pay for more expensive stuff for the fewer numbers that need it.
Richard, UK
Heart disease, arthritis, Parkinson's, depression, HIV, diabetes........ conditions that aren't cured, but use of medication can bring untold difference to the quality of people's lives. INFERTILITY IS NO DIFFERENT! The pain may not be physical but the causes are, and it is soul destroying. NHS funding should be made available to relieve this pain.
Jayne L, UK
No, no, no. While the NHS is struggling to find cash to treat life-threatening illness, the luxury of IVF should not be provided free to anyone. Whilst I appreciate the heartache that infertility can bring - I am myself infertile and cannot have children - it is ultimately a selfish desire rather than something essential. I personally could not accept that someone might die because funds were not available to treat them just so that I could have a baby.
Karyn Marshall, Bristol, England
| NHS was happy to fund treatment for my depression and stress caused by infertility |
My wife and I had fertility problems and due to lack of funding had to seek private medical help. We lost our first child, but now have two boys. Until someone has been through the gamut of emotions caused by infertility, it is difficult to truly appreciate the problems. By the way, the NHS was happy to fund treatment for my depression and stress caused by infertility. Funny old world!
Steve, UK It seems a bit harsh to compare infertility treatment with an illness like cancer. Cancer may be self inflicted in some cases, but it IS life threatening. I can't see how not having a baby could be life threatening. Maybe these people know something I don't?
Adam, UK
The NHS is overstretched and should be working hard to limit usage to the most important conditions. On the other hand, it would probably be seen as unfair if wealthy people with fertility problems were able to have children but poor people in the same position not as a result of NHS refusal. If IVF were limited to one cycle say, and if there were more controls of who had access to such treatment, then this might be a reasonable compromise.
Gerard, UK
Why does fertility treatment cost so much? �15,000?! I would like to see these figures accounted for. How much is wasted in administrative costs and boosting the profits of companies supplying the required drugs.
Sadie, UK
| Having a child is not a 'right' but unless faced with infertility it's impossible to appreciate the heartache caused by not being able to have one |
The access to any from of medical treatment should not be restricted to those who can afford to pay and go privately. Personally we have spent approximately �12000 over the last 3 years on IVF treatment. I don't begrudge spending a penny of this money and am happy to be wealthy enough to give myself this chance to have children. However there are many couples on lower incomes for whom this is not an option. Perhaps a compromise would be to adopt some form of means testing whereby the amount of money the NHS contribution to treatment is related to a couple's joint income? Having a child is not a 'right' I agree, but unless faced with infertility it is impossible to appreciate the heartache caused by not being able to have a child.
Nicky, UK It took me nearly two years to become pregnant. During the two years, we did consider adoption, but were planning first to go to the doctor and see if something was wrong with our fertility. Happily, my pregnancy came naturally, but I am absolutely in favour of NHS-given IVF for those for whom it doesn't. And I discovered in my antenatal classes that 90% of the pregnant women had been trying for less than four months. The number of women pregnant through assisted means is not as high as some of the "no" shouters would believe.
Child-bearing is neither a right, nor a luxury. It is a biological fact, and for the infertile, it stands as a daily kick in the teeth that something biological is wrong. Anxiety and depression can stem from feelings of inadequacy - and 1 in 4 people have some form of depression - surely prevention is better than cure?
G Adnitt, Britain
I think there are enough unwanted children in the world already, couples should consider adoption. More money needs to be spent on searching for cures for cancer, MS and other such illnesses that affect quality of life. If you aren't meant to have a child, then you shouldn't try and fight that.
Dawn, UK
I'm 24 years old and have suffered a miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy in just 1 year. I am married and we are doing IVF at the moment privately even though the NHS offered to put us on the waiting list. We couldn't wait the 1.5 years. If the government is willing to fund up to 3 cycles I would probably agree as it would be effective and less expensive.
Clare, UK
| I am going today to hospital to have embryo's put back in following IVF treatment |
After reading some of the comments I am disgusted in people's narrow-minded views. I am going today to hospital to have embryo's put back in following IVF treatment. I have paid �3000 for this. If you go through IVF you are a very determined individual, because it is very painful process. It should be available on the NHS, but means tested for those who can afford to pay, those who can't to get it free.
Tracy Bielby, England We live in an overpopulated country and can only barely fund essential medical treatments. Beyond satisfying peoples personal desires I can see no justification for government funded IVF.
Keith Walker, UK
I waited until I was married and earning enough money to provide for a child and then found out I couldn't conceive naturally. 12 years later, at 36, my dream still hasn't come true. I pay my taxes to support your children, put them through school and pay your NHS bills. I pay for 15-16 year olds who get pregnant "accidentally" and then pay for all their related "social security" costs. I am even paying towards your working families tax credit, while I can't have a family of my own. Why shouldn't I be able to have something back from this government, maybe not through the NHS, but by a special fund for infertility, paid for through mine and every other infertile couples taxes.
Sandra, UK
Perhaps those respondents who are lucky enough to have children naturally should be forced to pay for their own antenatal costs, medical bills for their children, the cost of primary, secondary and tertiary education. Would they be able to fund that lot without the taxes contributed by the one in six of the population who can't have kids? At the moment we are paying twice - for other people's children and for the chance to have our own.
I resent the implication that most people having IVF are career obsessed women who have left it too late to conceive. In 50% of cases it is the man who is infertile. Many women do not willingly leave it so late to have children but responsibly wait for the right partner. Others spend many years undergoing surgeries or taking conventional fertility drugs whilst they save for IVF. If the NHS in other countries can fund up to six attempts then we should be capable of doing the same.
Helen, UK
| You're not paying for the education of other people's kids, you're paying for your own |
I smoke and one day may very well need the services of the NHS. Now to all the non-smokers who suggest providing healthcare to people like me is less worthwhile than providing IVF I say this: Are you really under the misguided impression that because you don't smoke you are somehow impervious to injury, illness or death? The sad news is that whether you smoke or not, you will one day require health care of some sort yourselves. That's why we all share the financial burden of the NHS. Another common point seems to be that infertile couples 'pay' for the education of other couples' children, so why shouldn't 'we' pay for their IVF. Let's look at it this way: I received a pretty good state education, including a university education. And guess what I paid for that education? Nothing. So as far as I'm concerned the taxes I pay now are paying for the education I got back then. I would suggest that most people here, infertile or not, benefited from the education system to some extent. You're not paying for the education of other people's kids, you're paying for your own.
Dominic, Scotland
Whilst I agree in principle, there should be some restrictions. For example the couple must be in a stable relationship and able to care for the baby. There would be little point in funding the IVF only for the child to be taken into care.
Caron, England
I think that it is brilliant to be offered 6 IVF attempts on the NHS. Anyone who is against this are undoubtedly people who have children or people who don't want children. This has given great hope to childless couples.
Barbara Kennedy, Scotland
| If it was made free for all, then waiting lists for treatment would be long and soul destroying for the couple |
In an ideal world then yes IVF should be free to all, but we all agree that the NHS is already stretched to its limits so I doubt this will ever happen. I am currently undergoing IVF which is self-funded and although we have struggled to pay for it ourselves, we have no alternative. I have never complained about paying, as my longing for a child of my own is overwhelming. However, I think that IVF should be cheaper for all couples as it can cost around �1,000-�4,000 per cycle. Personally I feel that if it was made free for all, then waiting lists for treatment would be long and soul destroying for the couple. Although I feel we have been penalised through no fault of our own as we are unable to conceive naturally, I think in paying for treatment shows a strong commitment to becoming parents and those babies are all the more precious and loved as it has not come easily.
Nicola, UK
The NHS was intended to cure illness. Infertility is very sad, but it's a condition not an illness. The NHS should not pay for this in any postcode, let alone all of them.
John R Smith, UK
This argument about whether or not we fund IVF on the NHS is NOT about having a "right" to have a child. If we democratically choose to make health care free at the point of service, then we need guidelines about what is acceptable and what is not. Infertility is an illness. Personally, if the NHS resources have to be rationed - I'd rather not spend money on those who choose to drink, drive and then injure themselves. Or people who overeat and then have obesity related illnesses. But we don't even consider rationing what they can have for free - so why on earth is infertility an issue?
Carrie Mac, UK
I am sorry to sound kind of cold but doesn't IVF enable couples to potentially have infertile children? IVF should be given to couples who are infertile for reasons other than genetics. Let's not play the eugenics game here. Also there is no such thing as the right to have a baby simply because one is a woman. What about the right to eat when one is a starving child?
Jaeyun, Yosu S.Korea
The idea that the NHS would not provide treatment for an MS sufferer or any disease that restricts one's ability to live a full life would seem barbaric and yet some argue that a couple's inability to have a child is not the same. We are inherently driven to procreate and although there of those that choose not to have children the overwhelming majority of couples do, driven by desires over which they have no control. The impact of being unable to fulfil that desire can be devastating to the mental health of those concerned. We are not talking about wanting a bigger house or any other luxury conceived of by man, but of wanting to have what we have evolved to do: an issue that is so much more profound.
Nick, UK
As a childless MS sufferer, I know which situation I'd rather be addressed first (and no, it's not the childlessness) Infertility is heartbreaking but in terms of priorities? Please!!
BT, Redditch, England
I think it's unfair of those wanting free IVF treatment to claim that those against free treatment are those who have not gone through infertility. I was considered to be infertile until recently, luckily I have conceived naturally, but never did it occur to me that it is my right to have a child. I was prepared to adopt and would not have expected to have a new born baby handed over to me simply because I was unable to conceive a child of my own. .
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex UK For all the fertile people who begrudge me my NHS fertility treatment, we have been trying to have a family since I was 23 yrs old, we have both paid huge amounts of money from our hard earned wages into this community, which has gone towards schooling your children, clothing them, housing them, keeping them healthy. I do not begrudge you this, now get real and understand that we are entitled to something back from our unending contribution to your families.
Babs, England
I don't think that IVF should be made available free on the NHS. Not-being-able-to-have-a-baby is not a life-threatening disease, it's just one of those things: if we introduce IVF on the NHS where do you draw the line?
David Moran, Scotland/Australia
Alright then, I'd like a Porsche. I didn't ask to be born without �50k to buy one, why should "experience the pain of exclusion"? I want one desperately so why should someone else who has the money have one and not me? It's not fair that I can't drive the car I want, why should the fact that I don't have �50k mean I can't have one? I think everyone else should get their wallets out and pay for me to have my Porsche. That means you, and you and you over there. Get your wallets out and pay for my want! Hurry up!
Jackie, UK
Jackie-UK I hope you dont want us, infertile people who have paid tax for numerous years, to pay for your treatment the day you crash your Porsche.
Elaine W, Scotland
| I do not believe that only those with money should be able to try to help nature along |
I 100% believe that the NHS should fund IVF for childless couples. I do not believe that only those with money should be able to try to help nature along!!! Adoption is very important and I commend anyone who does so but this is no substitute for a child of your own, and for people to say that a desire for a child of your own is a WHIM and that they should just accept they cant have one and adopt is an appalling statement and I hope these people are never in the same position!!!
Emma Davies, England For goodness sake, we live in trouble-free privileged society, and all some people here can do is moan about their heartache because they can't give birth. I'm sure this isn't a result that most people want, but get over it and move on with your life. If you're so desperate to love a child, adopt. We all really know why adoption isn't the preferred option and it's the same reason why those want IVF on the NHS: selfishness and ego. Well, you feed your own selfishness and ego if you want to - but don't expect us to. Give my money to people who really need it, not people who don't realise what a good thing they've already got.
rebecca g., UK
I don't want a society where only the wealthy are allowed to reproduce. If we want an equitable, democratic society we must put the means to the common life - and that includes family - into the hands of everybody who works or desires to.
Andrew Bartlett, UK
Perhaps there is a third option to be considered here that would be acceptable to both sides. I would suggest that payments for IVF treatment should attract tax breaks for the individual concerned. With such a method, the government is contributing part of the costs without necessarily reducing the funds available to the NHS for other treatments while the prospective parents have the financial burden reduced by between 32 and 41 percent.
Gary Lindsay, UK
| 6 cycles is too many to be giving free, maybe 3 and then be charged |
At 10:30 this morning I paid �2483.00 for our second cycle of IVF (1st one funded & failed) I would like to point out that 6 cycles is too many to be giving free, maybe 3 and then be charged. IVF is not something my wife & I want to go through; it's a natural part of life unlike the cause of a lot of treatment that has to be given on the NHS (FREE!!)
DaveK, UK Yes, of course IVF should be available on the NHS. This treatment can offer hope to thousands. But what about resources? Well, why not tax big business, including the pharmaceutical corporations who make billions every year; they can afford to pay something back!
Ben Drake, York, UK
The NHS cannot in any circumstances afford to pay for IVF! I understand the sadness and disappointment a couple must feel at not being able to have a baby of their own but it's nothing in comparison with the anguish of people and their carers who have to deal with life threatening illnesses such as cancer and heart disease and not all caused by smoking and drinking either. I don't want to see this government reallocate funds from care for such illnesses to pander to people's whims. Why don't these couples be encouraged to adopt instead? There are plenty of children in care who need a good home.
Laura Protheroe, Bristol, UK
I bet all the people out there against IVF on the UK have children and have no idea the impact infertility has on your life. If I hadn't paid what I have into the NHS all these years (and taken nothing out) I could afford IFV. I look after my health - more than most people in this country can say. Remind me again how much a heart transplant costs after a life of no exercise and eating badly.
Susan, WALES
| Not been able to conceive affects how you feel as a woman |
I'm 32 and have been appalled at the lack of sensitivity that the media has given to this subject. I feel that ending the postcode lottery for Infertility treatment will be much fairer for all couples throughout the UK. I would love to be a mother, I have nieces but it isn't the same as your own. Not been able to conceive affects how you feel as a woman. There is nothing else in life which can compensate for this.
Stella Wibrew, UK I am flummoxed by those who complain that cancer patients receive treatment through the NHS simply because that person may have smoked. My friend died a very painful death from stomach cancer. I would have given every penny I earned if it helped ease the pain of her death. I would also give every penny I earned - if I was so desperate to have a baby! I know which I and the clear thinking majority of intelligent people of the UK would have chosen!
Lea, Scotland
A compromise would be for this to be means-tested and subject to the same waiting lists as other non-essential treatments.
Debbie, UK
Should IVF treatment be paid for by the NHS? Good question. The idea that IVF being "free" on the NHS means it will be accessible to all is of course complete nonsense - there will be rationing by queue, just like the rest of the NHS. Desperate women who want treatment quickly will have to go private. Back to square one.
Ralph, England
I don't think the NHS should pay for the IVF treatments. There are more important treatments to be paid for. It's understandable that people want to have kids of their own, but at the end of the day if you cannot do it naturally then accept it and consider other options - adoption for one. Why should we pay for other people to have a family when it is expensive enough to pay for our own!
Tracey, UK
Whilst I have every sympathy with those wanting children, I do not believe we should be asking the tax payer to fork out for it. The NHS is cash strapped already, hence the extra NI all those working have been hit with. Are we to have another 1% increase to satisfy the needs of those unable to conceive?
Jon, UK
| It offers false hope to most and the odd success to the lucky few |
IVF has extremely low success rates and yet it is the first port of call for most infertile couples. It offers false hope to most and the odd success to the lucky few. It can become a lifetime obsession and as the financial outlay mounts so the chances of success drop. Fifty years ago people had to accept infertility and find other ways to make their lives fulfilling. Now we all feel angry and victimised and shout about 'rights' and 'equality'. I think we need compulsory infertility counselling and objective information so that people can make realistic decisions about the best course of action. Channel the money into infertility research and prevention campaigns, and improve our counselling and adoption services.
Kat, Wales After reading many of the comments against IVF on the NHS my blood is boiling. I don't think any of these people have a clue what it is like to be in the situation where you desperately want a child but for one reason or another can't have them naturally and cannot afford private medical help. Having fallen pregnant twice naturally but miscarrying both times I am now unable to get pregnant without help, through no fault of my own. We cannot afford the lump sum outlay for a private go at IVF. The emotional turmoil at times is unbearable and peoples cruel comments hurt like hell. So those people that are against put yourself in my shoes and see how it feels.
Karen, England
I am totally for IVF being funded by the NHS. I have fertility problems and will possibly have to have IVF. I have done nothing to cause this, I have been trying to conceive since I was 28 so it has nothing to do with leaving things late in life, as many of you seem to think. My argument is that infertility is not a choice whereas smoking, drinking, over eating/lack of exercise, drug taking, etc is. Also, I and my husband have paid taxes/national insurance into this country for 15 years, why am I not entitled to get something back, especially as an illegal immigrant or asylum seeker can come straight into this country and start draining the NHS?
Emma, England
All I can say is I am glad that this treatment was only in its early stages in the 70's, otherwise i may have never been adopted. Having a child is not a right, do something truly amazing - provide a home for a child that needs one. Don't create another child because of 'I want'.
Denise, UK
| If I couldn't have kids of my own, I'd adopt one |
It just seems bizarre to me that the NHS could soon be paying for abortion and IVF. I am 26, married and enjoying my career - I'm planning on having kids in a couple of years, but if one arrived now it wouldn't be a disaster. If I couldn't have kids of my own, I'd adopt one of the many young children who would otherwise be sentenced to a childhood in care homes. I do not under-estimate the pain of not being able to give birth to your own flesh and blood, but being a parent is about the responsibility, not the biology. It is not harsh or judgemental to make this point in a context where abortion and IVF funding decisions seem to be more about customer (a.k.a. patient) service and less about the welfare of the child.
Heather, UK Long overdue! My husband and have been penalised all the way along the IVF route as I have a daughter from my first marriage, whilst he has none, were it the other way around we would have received some help. This year alone we have spent well over �6000 on IVF and in fact had to put our home on the market to fund one last try (the sale has fallen through) so once again we are in limbo. All we want is a child of our own the laws and guide lines regarding who gets treatment are still stuck in the 80s. Give us all the same rights. Sadly by the time this comes in I'm likely to have lost out again as I'll be 40 next year. Hurry up and save lots of women like me the heartache of exclusion.
Helen Goodison, UK
No. I feel strongly about this. I don't agree with IVF and don't believe it should be provided as an NHS service. I would, however, be quite happy to see adoption provided as free service - and made more accessible instead of having all these daft rules about why you are not eligible as an adoptive parent (yet you could still go on to become a parent through IVF?!?) I know a lot of you will find that harsh but children without a family find life harsh too.
Jay, UK
There are a lot of very selfish people out there, who don't think they should be paying for IVF, or even child benefits etc, because it doesn't impact on their lives. I could easily switch the argument around and say why should I pay for the services on the NHS that deal with alcoholics, drunken drivers, smokers, drug addicts, violent offenders, people who had unsafe sex and now have STIs, dangerous drivers and car thieves caught in accidents etc. All these and other so-called burdens on the NHS are due to "life-style choices", and are far more selfish than the desire to bring a new life into the world.
Rob, UK
| The NHS should start charging for other non-essential treatments, say for example travel jabs |
The heartless answer would have to be no one has a right to a child and why should the tax payer subsidise a treatment which does not relate to a persons health. HOWEVER, I have a child and the absolute joy she has brought to our family is beyond measure. I could not therefore deny someone this joy by reason of cost. Rather the NHS should start charging for other non-essential treatments, say for example travel jabs.
Martin, UK Adoption! Adoption! Adoption! Why should I pay for women who were too career orientated or chose a certain life plan in their 20s and early 30s to have a child? So many children would benefit from a good home and loving parents. IVF is just another result of a spoiled society which believes money can buy you everything!
Monika, UK
No. If you can't produce a child with the equipment you've already got, then you should accept the fact and get on with your life. This is just another case of the 'I want' scenario.
Jon, England
Yes I think the NHS should pay for IVF treatment. Why should someone who drinks get a new liver? Why should someone who smokes get cancer treatment? And all those who use drugs, why should they get help? All of these are self inflicted, infertility is not. Give help to those people who deserve help and not those who bring it on themselves.
Alison, UK
To those who argue for or against free IVF on grounds of under or over population, I'd like to point out this is a completely irrelevant argument. The total number of babies born through IVF in the UK since 1978 would only half fill a premiership football stadium. It's a minute number in comparison to those born naturally and would make no appreciable difference either way to population balance.
Jane, Wales, UK
| Some people suffer terrible emotional agonies over this |
I have fertility problems and part of my treatment will include IVF. My husband and I have an above average income and whilst it would be nice to have a contribution to these massive expenses, we can actually afford them ourselves. Having said that they will put a strain on us for a while. But I don't think we should have the benefit of free treatment on the NHS because there are greater needs elsewhere. What I find quite offensive in some of the remarks on this column are that so many of you have extremely pompous, ill-informed, and downright cruel attitudes to IVF. 'Just adopt' and 'enjoy being a DINky'....do you really think that's clever or funny? Some people suffer terrible emotional agonies over this and I can only assume most of you who made these remarks either have children or don't want them.
Sara Dawson, UK Reproduction is not a right and the lack of fertility is rarely a life-threatening illness. We are living in a society where women are leaving childbirth until later in life. Therefore, we have something that is expensive, does not cure any illness or disease and for which demand is exponentially increasing year on year. It is ludicrous to suggest that the NHS should or indeed could foot the bill. The tax pot is filled by us all and whilst we'll happily foot the bill to save your life from the ravages of cancer or attempt to repair or replace a damaged limb, I think a large amount of taxpayers would not like the idea of their money being used to bring people's dreams of parenthood to fruition. I wish all those chasing that dream the very best of luck but it really is your dream and not one of society at large.
Phillip Holley, UK, London
I have had life saving treatment for a brain tumour and also treatment for infertility. At the time each treatment was critically important to me. But if I had to make the choice of which to have on the NHS - Chemotherapy definitely. Save my life then I'll think about having a baby.
Carmen, UK
| Infertility should be treated the same as any other illness |
Wanting to have a child is not just a lifestyle choice. I have wanted a child since I was 25. I waited until I was married to have a child and subsequently I am in my 30's. I am having fertility problems but my desire for a child is driven by my biology. I know I don't have the right to have a child, but I would very much like the chance to have one. I would like to be a mother and grandmother. I have worked all my adult life and never had a stay in hospital. Infertility should be treated the same as any other illness. I didn't choose or contribute to my problem whereas there are many people who are treated on the NHS who have. I don't begrudge anyone who needs help from the NHS, that is what it is for, though I think most people would not complain about IVF if it was made cheaper.
K West, UK The country is not overpopulated, as several contributors to this debate have suggested, it is becoming imbalanced. As the average age of the population increases (because there aren't enough children being born), then the financial health of the country becomes poorer, as we will have less tax payers to non-tax payers, and more demand on services (pensions, health care, social provision, old folks homes etc). As far as I'm aware, one of the Government's biggest concerns is that we don't go into a population decline (as many European countries are close to). I'd have thought more babies, not less would solve this problem.
Robbie, UK
No. A couple who choose to undergo IVF are not my responsibility. Why should I go to work to pay for them? I'm happy to pay NI for a decent Health Service (not the one we have now though), but it's bad enough expecting me to pay for other people's children via child benefit, let alone making me pay for them to artificially create them in the first place! Children are the responsibility of the parents - they should pay for them every step of the way, and I'll pay for mine.
Natasha, UK
| The NHS would be better off getting to the root of the problem |
The NHS would be better off getting to the root of the problem with a nationwide Chlamydia screening program. This 'silent epidemic' causes infertility if left untreated, so perhaps prevention would be better than cure?
Helen, UK IVF should most definitely be provided by the NHS. Every woman has the right to have a child regardless of where she lives. IVF is not playing God or corrupting Nature - if that were a viable argument, other treatments currently available such as insulin treatment for diabetics, chemotherapy and indeed all invasive procedures would be immoral, as it is they are not, they are simply techniques that originated in a laboratory in exactly the same way IVF has. Infertility is a deeply distressing condition and if women can be scientifically helped to conceive, then they should be free to do so without judgement or the luck of their address.
Mrs T, Northern Ireland
IVF should not be funded by the NHS. Having a child is not a right. The NHS has become a right, but it should not be taken for granted. It should not pander to people's wants, rather it should provide for those who need its support to maintain a reasonable quality of life. And yes, making it easier for a cancer patient (including smokers) to die comes before making it easier for couples to have children.
David, UK
There is nothing more special than bringing your own child into the world. If there are medical reasons preventing this then why shouldn't the NHS pay for it? In the UK we all contribute towards the NHS which means we should all benefit. Everyone opposed here would soon change their mind if they knew someone who needed this help but could not afford it. Our population in this country is in decline so let's boost it.
Duncan, London, UK
As a Scottish expat who is paying for IVF treatment in Australia, I have to wonder if the old notion of "no right to a child" is even relevant. Society deems it acceptable to provide NHS liver transplants to an alcoholic, or a lung transplant to a chronic chain-smoker. Surely if it is acceptable to offer these treatments on the NHS it is acceptable to assist infertile couples without prejudice.
Steven Miller, Australia
To those who say "Yes" My mother is on a waiting list for two new hips, she has been contributing to the NHS all her working life. Why should her treatment take second place to someone who wants (wants you note not needs) a child.
Andrew, England
No, no and no again! How can we think of spending so much money (where, by the way, is it coming from?) on helping people to have babies when people are dying for want of medical treatment? The NHS was set up to treat disease. Infertility is not a disease and this treatment should therefore not be available on the NHS. When we have a decent NHS where people no longer have to suffer while waiting for treatment we can then look at supplying free IVF. Until then the answer should be a resounding no.
S. Cohen, UK
There are actually very few babies for adoption - and those who are, are young children between 3 and 10 years old. But before you say "go and adopt", just think how hard that is. I was in my late 20s when I married, my husband was in his early 40s. We didn't find out for over 5 years that there were any problems. Even if we had known before then, we would have not have been regarded as "suitable" because of my husband's age. So we have had to come to terms with the fact that unless we can find �15,000 (on average) we will continue to be childless. And contrary to what some other comments say, a married couple finding �15,000 is not easy. Just because we don't have children doesn't mean we're rolling in it!
Susan, England
How can these people say no to free IVF treatment? I bet they have all had children naturally without problems. How can they say no when they have no idea what it is like to WANT a child of their own but can't without help. Not everybody has the money to pay for treatment but they can pay for the day to day expenses of bringing up a child. Infertility is basically a disability so why can't we have help with our disability? A lot of infertility is caused through illness and rape so how dare anyone say that we shouldn't get help.
Kim Richards, England
With an increase in unsafe sex, and leaving it until mid 30's to start a family, both major factors in infertility, I feel the NHS should not have this additional burden due to a change in social attitudes. But we are of a selfish "I want it, and I want it for nothing" generation and so people believe it is their right to have free IVF treatment. With an over-stretched NHS as it is, I think there should be limits placed on what is considered an illness and to me infertility does not come under those criteria.
Rachel, UK
| As a woman who has paid tax and NI all her working life why shouldn't I get something back? |
Yes, treatment should be funded by the NHS. As a woman who has paid tax and NI all her working life why shouldn't I get something back in return? I am lucky enough to have a child through IVF paid for by myself and my husband! You should also ask whether the NHS should pay for cancer treatment for those that smoke, and even after having treatment continue to smoke. Those that drink and have ruined their livers! My infertility was not self inflicted and I didn't leave trying for a baby until late in life, I was 28 years old when we decided to start a family. Unless you are faced with the prospect of never having children you couldn't possibly understand the heartache we go through.
Clare, England With the NHS already stretched to breaking point, I think it is imperative that it only treats those cases where there is a clinical need for medical attention. Lifestyle choices like IVF or cosmetic surgery are luxury treatments, not necessities, and should never be treated free of charge on the NHS.
David Hazel, UK
I am currently on the waiting list for IVF treatment, and think myself lucky that I will be able to have one attempt on the NHS. However it does seem unfair that people living elsewhere may get more than one attempt on the NHS. Working for the NHS myself I understand the lack of funding and problems of how scarce resources can be allocated. I also feel that until you experience the mental anguish of infertility you have no right to disregard infertility as a condition less worth treating than for example lung cancer of heavy smokers.
Sheila, UK
With this small island Earth as overpopulated as it is, and the UK even more so, infertility is a blessing. Not one penny of taxpayers' money should be used to fund any infertility treatment, irrespective of age, gender or reason for infertility. Generous tax breaks for voluntary sterilization should be considered. At any rate, once our overstressed health service can treat patients who are genuinely ill with some sort of respect.
Brian, UK
Absolutely not. Humankind no longer evolves because medicine is so advanced. If a couple can't conceive naturally it's probably for a good reason. The trouble is most people don't take adoption seriously because they think in order to love a child it has to be your own flesh and blood. Nonsense.
Claire, UK
If we never had any health service waiting lists then fair enough, free IVF treatment, but when people are waiting over a year for something fairly simple then free IVF is wrong. Children are a privilege not a necessity, if people cannot afford there own IVF treatment, how can they fund the next 16/18 yrs of a child's life? Get the health service in order before free IVF.
Jane, UK
| The health service is in dire straits already without this additional burden |
No I do not agree with this. Whilst I have every sympathy for couples who suffer from the problems associated with the inability to have children through normal means, this is hardly a life threatening condition. It takes a stretch of the imagination to even consider it an illness as nobody's health has failed as a result. The health service is in dire straits already without this additional burden. What you are saying is it's alright for someone to die through lack of funds as long as you can give birth. Sorry but no, if you want this kind of treatment then you should pay privately.
Keith, UK Undergoing the treatment for the second time myself, I strongly agree that we should get some sort of assistance. This is my second attempt after having miscarried last time and have had to sell our house to fund this next course.
Samantha Roberts, England
As someone who is adopted I can see the argument from both sides, as I feel that there are so many children who have not got a home in the UK and the world, would it not be more sensible to reduce the red tape that is behind the adoption process? However I also understand that it is hard for parents to accept that they cannot have children naturally, but I have had a good life and there are so many children also wanting the same chances!
Ian Fraser, UK
There is no proof that there are too many people on the planet, we just have problems managing resources in various places in the world. That said, I have to agree that it is a ridiculous suggestion to put more strain on an NHS which is already a laughing stock in many areas. I do empathize with those who have had the heartache of not being able to conceive in their timetable, but babies really aren't commodities, and I do question even the morality of disposing of embryos in order that 'good' ones can be artificially implanted. We need to stop trying to play God.
Yvonne Dalton, U.K.
Yes, of course. The NHS spends countless millions every year on drunken hooligans coming into A&E with injuries from bar room brawls - how can anyone say with any fairness and a clear conscience that infertile couples have less of a right than common thugs? I do, however, feel that a limit might need to be put in place as to just how many children each couple can be allowed to produce in this manner. Current medical standards generally prolong life - booming population figures are always something to consider in a situation like this.
Jason Miles, UK
| We should be entitled to the same treatment at the same price regardless of where we live |
My husband and I were advised two weeks ago that our chances of conceiving naturally are slim. We must now join the lists for IVF. Those who do not know the pain of infertility cannot provide valid comment to this subject! All fertility treatments should be regulated across the NHS. We should be entitled to the same treatment at the same price regardless of where we live.
C, UK For C, UK to say "Those who do not know the pain of infertility cannot provide valid comment to this subject!" is like saying only astronauts can comment on space investment or soldiers on the army. It's our NHS, we all pay for it, and it's arrogant to try and shut off debate with that sort of comment.
Simon, UK
Is this the same NHS that can no longer afford to treat our pensioners? Is this the same NHS that has people waiting of hours on trolleys to be seen to? Is this the same NHS that has waiting lists for life threatening illness? If it is not, then, fine go ahead. If it is then we really must prioritise! The NHS is failing and now we "demand" to have "the right" to IVF. It is about time all these people realise that people have a right to life before they have a right to babies!
Graham, UK
The NHS shells out millions for the treatment of people who have lung cancer, heart problems, liver problems to name a few because of years of unhealthy living because of drinking to much alcohol, smoking and drug taking so why not pay for IVF treatment for people who are infertile and are desperately wanting a child. They should be given the chance - absolutely.
Nicola, UK
If one in six couples have fertility problems, maybe they should look at their lifestyle and diet rather than a magic 'pill' to solve their problems. One noted Gynaecologist stated last year that the 20% success rate for a first attempt could be increased, in most cases to 50% if couples did this, but as usual these days, most won't. The whole thing is a perfect example of how people put their own needs and desires before the pain and suffering of others.
Steve, UK
No, IVF should not be publicly funded. There are more than enough people in the world already - we actually need to lose a few, not create more. Those people that are unable to conceive naturally should accept the fact, move on and enjoy the fact that they should be able to live the DINKy lifestyle. If you really want a child, why not adopt one of the many children that are currently languishing in orphanages in this country?
David, UK
| Let the NHS cope with life-threatening illnesses first |
Whilst the money it costs to get IVF privately may seem inhibitive, it is nowhere near the cost of bringing up a child. Let the NHS cope with life-threatening illnesses first.
Jonathan Kelk, UK Yes. Of course this treatment should be made available on the NHS. There is a huge list of treatments that are already available on the NHS that can only be considered non-essential, typical examples include smoking cessation, drug rehabilitation etc. Fertility treatment does not fit into the above category - as the patients are in no way to blame. Surely every couple should be given the ability to children naturally.
David, Indonesia / UK
Everybody should be given an equal chance to have a child. Not everybody can afford the cost of the treatment and so why should the less wealthy not have access to this service?
Nicky Watson, England
On the one hand I can see that if we started to turn away the so-called health tourists who cost us �15,000 p.a. to treat their HIV we could afford to offer IVF to our own citizens and taxpayers. On the other hand for as long as we have people with chest pains waiting on trolleys and people dying while waiting to see a specialist I think it is absurd that further resources are diverted to treat conditions which are not life threatening. If women are to be offered six cycles what happens if all six fail?
John B, UK
| The law should look seriously at the adoption laws and the people who enforce them |
As someone who has fertility problems, I agree the NHS has far greater priorities, but this does not mean I do not want children. The law should look seriously at the adoption laws and the people who enforce them. These days 35 is too old, you are too fat and therefore a health risk, or if you have pets which are supposed to be good for children you are considered a risk as they carry germs! Get real guys and then people would be more willing to adopt and not just go for IVF. Make the system fairer and reap the rewards. People could fit all the criteria and get run over by a bus tomorrow - life is a risk.
Jo, UK In an ideal world, yes. But there are already 7-year waiting lists in some areas for the little IVF the NHS does carry out Just how is the NHS going to cope with the extra demand?
Jane, Wales, UK
The NHS was set up so that those who couldn't afford to pay for health care could have their illnesses treated for free. My dad, who has had two strokes and 3 heart attacks before he was 60 is now using a wheelchair because the tests he needs to see if he can get further treatment for his breathing are in October, and the treatment is unlikely to start until the middle of next year (if he lives that long). Why should we waste our NHS money on IVF when there are sick people out there who are likely to die as a result?
Louisa, UK
Infertility is a living hell that can cause psychological illness and destroy marriages. Some are able to afford IVF (with no guarantee of success) but many aren't, treatment should be equal for all. The attitude that its 'mother nature' taking a hand to control the population is downright evil. These couples don't 'deserve' their condition, they deserve an equal chance at treatment.
Jessica, UK
As someone who is fortunate enough to be able to afford IVF treatment (�9000 and counting) maybe an option is for the NHS to contribute towards treatment for those couples who can't afford it. Also if adoption in the UK was made easier I and I think many others would be parents would adopt. Investigation into infertility takes years - by which time many people are told they are too old to adopt in the UK
Sally , London UK
I think the people who object to IVF either don't want children or already have them. People wanting children but struggling should be offered the help they need.
Michelle, UK
| All children are gifts. We shouldn't turn them into a commodity |
No, I know from my own experience the pain of not having children, but I have also lost both parents to cancer. Our money should be spent on the many suffering painful illness, not the few who see it as their God-given right to have a child. All children are gifts. We shouldn't turn them into a commodity.
Elizabeth, England No we do not need more births in this country! A quick look at the CIA world fact book for 2002 shows the following: UK - 244 people per square km, France - 109, USA - 29, China - 133. Ever wondered why the NHS is under strain? There's your answer, too many people.
Scott, UK
Whilst one can feel sorry for couples who for whatever reason are unable to have children they should either pay for IFV treatment or adopt. The health service is for those people who require treatment for a genuine medical reason to restore their health. IFV treatment is for personal reasons and therefore should be paid for by the recipients and not by the state.
Hugh Putt, UK
A friend recently took out a loan for �15,000 to pay for his mother to have a heart operation. She would had to wait one and a half years on the NHS and was told she wouldn't last that long. The NHS can't cope at the moment - so why are we even considering putting even greater burdens on it?
mark cater, UK
Yes. Our fertility rate is dangerously low because many women do not want to have children. If IVF increases this rate, it has to be a good thing.
Chris Hillcoat, UK
There are enough babies coming into this overcrowded world. Do we need to help create more demand on limited resources, including medical resources?
Liam, USA
No IVF should not be available on the NHS. Whilst it is very sad for those who are unable to have children it is much sadder for those who cannot have a normal life or whose lives are threatened and who are left waiting for treatment. There are many things that should take priority and the 'right' to a child is not one of them.
Paul Owen, UK
Yes. The NHS isn't there for nothing; the human population should be noted too!
Charlotte, England
| Although not being able to have a baby is sad, it isn't life threatening |
I think when the NHS is having trouble paying for the latest drugs, to help cure them of fatal diseases like cancer; this is an incorrect use of NHS resources. Although not being able to have a baby is sad, it isn't life threatening or physically disabling, so the money should be spent elsewhere. To me it just smacks as a populist move to win votes at the next election.
Steve Conners, UK I don't think the NHS should pay for IVF treatment. Why do one in six people have fertility problems anyway? Isn't this rather high? Maybe it's Mother Nature's way of trying to slow down our encroachment of the earth or maybe it's a result of how we live our lives today. It's just another example of the modern attitude that you can have whatever you want - even if it means messing around with nature.
Merrian, England
Not until they sort out the Health Service, and decent Pensions.
Joe Doe, UK
It is not easy to say "No" to a couple who wants help to have a baby. But, let's face it; most married couples can afford �15000 for a baby. It is a lot of money, though, when you consider so many poor people waiting for treatment in hospitals. So, sorry, but no.
Mustafa Yorumcu, UK/Turkey
Government-sponsored health care should be limited to treating illnesses and conditions that negatively affect a person's health. While the inability to have children might seem tragic to a couple, it is not a life-threatening or health-altering situation. The government should not pay for it. Government funds should instead focus on those who really need treatment to better their quality of life.
Katherine P, USA
No. Being infertile is not an illness. Spend the money on the many desperately dilapidated hospitals caring for victims of disease and accidents.
Susie, UK
No. They should adopt a child. I should not be made to pay to bring another mouth into this already crowded world.
Chris, UK
When the NHS is already under funded with waiting lists for essential procedures to save and improve the quality of lives I feel that it is inappropriate to be spending public money on IVF. Not having a child does not seriously endanger the lives of people, unlike people waiting for essential surgery. With so many children waiting for adoptive parents we should be encouraging people to look at this alternative rather than creating more waiting lists.
Alex Leonard, United Kingdom I think it is a reasonable idea - we currently have a declining birth rate and an ageing population, so anything that leads to more births has to be a good thing.
Paul, UK
I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay for treatment which is the result of couples deciding to have children later (which is the main cause of infertility). I would much rather invest the tax I pay into research which aims to solve infertility. IVF doesn't cure infertility it merely exploits it so IVF specialists can make a lot of money.
Patrick Leahy, UK
Your opinion is uninformed, unfounded and extremely inaccurate. Age is NOT the main reason for infertility. Endomettility. Endometriosis, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, Premature Ovarian Failure and Turners Syndronme, to name but a few, would be the more likely suspects. People like you have no idea about infertility and I find your comments cruel and insensitive. I only hope for your sake that you never know the horrors and heartbreak of infertility. I have dealt with it for 4 years now and I am 29 years old. Not a 40 year old who has finally decided they want a baby.
Zoe, England
Waiting lists are sky high, patients urgently wait for treatment, we hear that people have lost their sight because they didn't have an appointment in time - with such chronic bed and staff shortages, do we really have 400 million to spend on a condition that is not life-threatening? If we have cash spare, then what about spending it on children that are starving and malnourished in the developing world?
Rebecca, UK
What about babies that need to be adopted? Why not focus energy and finances on those babies?
Mid, Canada
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
