The NHS will fund one free IVF treatment cycle for infertile couples - and not the three as clinical experts have recommended. Women under 40 will be offered at least one cycle of IVF treatment - but clinical experts are recommending three cycles.
About 50% of women become pregnant if they have three cycles of treatment, 25% become pregnant after one treatment.
What do you think? Should more treatments be made available? Should IVF be offered on the NHS at all? Send us your comments.
This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
 | SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Marcelle, Oxon, UK:  Should the NHS provide more than one cycle of IVF treatment to infertile couples?  |
I think it is great news that finally the government is looking into paying for IVF. After 15 years of trying for a baby there is a glimmer of hope that maybe we still have a chance. If you have never been in the situation nobody could understand the heartache and devastation involved.
Lorraine Weymouth, Andover Hampshire
I am lucky that I have two healthy children but a couple I know have to have IVF. All they want in the world is a child of their own. As it is a medical reason, my view is that the NHS should pay.
Sandy, West Midlands
Whilst it is unfortunate for couples who are unable to have children naturally, the NHS should not be giving free treatments to these couples. The money should be going on drugs and research into illnesses such as cancer.
Carol Hutton, Romford, Essex
With the UK's population expected to increase greatly in the next 20 years I think that IVF should not be offered on the NHS, especially if the couple already have a child. Couples should look to adopt orphans both from home and abroad.
Alex, Swansea
The cost of caring for a child in its first year alone exceeds the cost of one IVF treatment. If you can't afford to pay for the treatment, surely you can't afford to raise the child.
Mike, Bath, UK
| To not allow IVF because of the cost, is just being short-sighted |
My country has just stopped free access to IVF. I feel, that with the birth-rates in Europe so low as they are, they should be delighted if people want to have children. After all, these children will be paying for our retirement in a few years time. To not allow IVF because of the cost, is just being short-sighted.
Katherine Mayer, Germany Why is it restricted to women under 40? I like that an infertile couple are given a chance however it should not be on age, but health merits. Also it should only be available to couples whom have contributed through National Insurance contributions over say a period of 10 years.
Jackie Nielson, Hull, England
I don't agree with IVF and therefore I disagree with the NHS providing it for free. If you can't have children there is a reason for it and people should think about those reasons before selfishly demanding to have offspring.
JJ, London, UK
I fell into the unlucky 50 percent (that nobody seems to wants to hear about) remaining childless after seven attempts at IVF for which we were fortunate enough to be able to pay. I think it should be available on the NHS but it should be means tested. Those who can afford to pay should pay something towards their treatment even if not the full cost.
Jane, Wales, UK
What a lot of self-righteous, mean-minded respondents you have. Babies are a joy and we should certainly help those with conception difficulties. Think of the cost of the ill health brought on by all those despairing couples otherwise.
Alison R Noyes, London, UK
Although I sympathise with these couples who cannot have children in a normal fashion, I don't think the NHS should payout for IVF treatment. I know this seems a harsh statement, but we have to prioritise NHS care for humans who are already living.
Andy , UK
I will be getting married soon and will one day like to have a family. If I couldn't conceived naturally I would be devastated. Although not an illness as such, infertility very often leads to psychological problems which the NHS will undoubtedly end up paying for anyway. Adoption can be a very long and complicated route to go down so giving that as an easy answer is not really helpful. The fact is that yes the NHS is stretched so shouldn't the issue be here of sorting that out so we can provide treatments such as IVF?
Lianne, Cannock, UK
Everyone should have access to any and every service that they want. Tax bills should be as low as possible. We have to find a happy medium that the country can afford. Given how many children are waiting for families to foster them or adopt them, I do not see that IVF can be a top priority for society.
Timothy Godfrey, Croydon, UK
It is absolutely disgusting to spend a penny of public money on this unnecessary treatment while there are plenty of poor orphans desperate to be adopted into a new homes and there are so many people waiting for NHS treatment for serious medical problems.
Dave, Hampshire, UK
I think IVF should be funded by the NHS. Why should the treatment only be afforded by the rich? For those people who say that it's not necessary as it's a lifestyle choice, why don't we fund it by charging people for: obesity, sports, drink, drug, smoking, car, work related illnesses/accidents? In fact why don't we scrap healthcare for over 80's, because I didn't ask them to live so old! The point is the NHS should be for everyone, not just the majority.
Siggy, Worksop
| I feel sympathy for couples who are desperate for children but there are alternatives |
Our NHS is already overburdened and this will only make things worse. IVF is not a necessary treatment. Put the money earmarked for this into intensive care beds of which the NHS is woefully short or another section. I feel sympathy for couples who are desperate for children but there are alternatives - adoption and saving up for treatment, there are no alternatives for people waiting for an intensive care bed.
Claire Herbert, London In an ideal world it would be lovely to help childless people conceive using IVF. However, this is a luxury we can't afford while there are still long waiting lists for treatment for illnesses.
JW, UK
NEVER! Under no circumstances should this be allowed using Public Money. I do not pay my taxes to enable IVF to become available when I cannot even get a specialists appointment myself. I have been "scrapped" by the NHS as incurable due to botched surgery damaging my spine and spinal cord, and I face a wheelchair at some point in my future, and all they want to do is give me methadone as it is cheap and will save them money. Free IVF? Over my dead body - which will probably be the case!
Neil Wilkes, London, England
IVF is unnecessary all together in an overpopulated world. Couples need counselling to achieve contentment with not having children. It is perfectly possible for them to live a fulfilled life.
Gill, Llandysul, Wales
Only if the NHS can afford it and I guess that means no.
Richard, Hatfield, Herts
The money would be better spent on saving lives of children already alive. Also there is no such thing as a right to have children.
Neil, Glasgow
I am pleased to see this however one treatment is not usually enough. It is more common to get pregnant after the third treatment. In Belgium it is seen as normal for people to take IVF if needed.
Fijone, Belgium
By all means allow IVF treatment to the people that have contributed to the National Health but certainly not to those who haven't. After all if they depend on state handouts to live how do they expect to be able to afford children, unless of course they expect the state to keep them also.
Liz , Durham
| Do people want the NHS to only treat people who are at deaths door? |
Infertility is a medical problem. There are many disorders and disabilities that people suffer from which are not life threatening, yet we should still offer people the chance to improve their quality of life, so yes IVF should be available on the NHS. Do people want the NHS to only treat people who are at deaths door? In that case we'd better get rid of dentists and GPs altogether then.
Helen, Exeter, UK Brilliant idea! Let people have their children, while the rest of us with medical emergencies are told there's not enough funding. Thank you Labour.
Ed, London, UK
Me and my partner have been trying for three years and have found out that we can't have kids due to her having PCOS. Without this help we can't afford IVF and most average couples nowadays can't afford it, I agree with comments made that people who do not need it get one hit but people that have serious medical problems should get as much help as possible.
Paul, Andover, Hants
Absolutely not! IVF is not an essential treatment, and having babies is not a right, it's something nature grants you. If you can't have a child, adopt one, if you can't afford IVF treatment, you shouldn't have babies, they cost a lot more than �3000 to raise. For the couple who say that smokers should pay for their cancer treatment because it is self-inflicted, the huge amount of tax that smokers pay on cigarettes will easily pay for their cancer treatment as well as your IVF. I don't want NHS resources to go towards unnecessary treatments when waiting lists are years long for patients with REAL illnesses.
Martine, Somerset
If you can't afford the treatment then you certainly can't afford to bring up a child.
Chris Clarke, UK
Help couples have children or help cancer sufferers, no contest, people who require IVF are not in life or death situations.
John, England
I went through several IVF treatments with my ex wife all of which failed. It led to the break up of our marriage. The success rate in IVF is in fact only 14% and at a time when the NHS is so stretched I find it extraordinary that this is being proposed. Half the population cannot even get an NHS dentist and there are not enough beds for urgent cases. The NHS should exist to offer urgent and life saving treatment to those who need it most and this latest proposal by the government is definitely a case misplaced priorities. Could it perhaps have something to do with an impending election I wonder!
Philip Cleveland, UK
I earned �7,500 last year and have been rejected in my application for free prescriptions. I have asthma and need three drugs just to stay healthy. When I am ill or need treatment for anything else, I can't afford my prescriptions. The NHS however gives diabetics their treatment for free no matter how rich they are. So diabetics and people wanting kids get free treatment no matter how rich they are. I am a chronic asthmatic earning �7,500 but the state won't fund the treatment I need to stay healthy. I chose not to have kids so therefore my opinion doesn't really count. I am so upset and angry about this. Helen
Helen, London
Regarding having children as a right is another symptom of society's focus on what we can have rather than what we can give. End the postcode lottery by scrapping IVF on the NHS completely.
James Judge, Altrincham, England.
| I don't think that anyone who has not been in the position of being infertile can really criticize this suggestion |
I don't think that anyone who has not been in the position of being infertile can really criticize this suggestion. To not be able to conceive and do what any other woman can do is a devastating psychological belittling. It makes you feel that you are not worthy of motherhood and if IVF can help these women and help our falling birth rates then I don't see why someone could deny this country the opportunity to help these people.
Katie, Putney, London I am a very lucky mum who conceived successfully on my first cycle of IVF funded by the NHS. Funding should be available and continue to be for three cycles on the NHS as being infertile is an illness. It affects your mental health, relationship, and the way you look at life. Until you have been in this situation I feel it unfair for people to comment.
K, UK
That first step in right direction. If infertile couple pay for treatment of alcoholics, smokers, obese, AIDS people, I don't understand why people have problem in NHS paying for IVF. Infertile couples also pay for all the heath problems caused from lifestyles of people of which they are aware. This is something of no fault of them.
Sam, UK
Simple answer ..... no! The inability to conceive is a rotten fate, but not a sickness. The NHS is here primarily to heal the sick; not pander to the wishes of the greedy!
Pige, Jersey
Of course the NHS should fund as many fertility treatments as people want - just as soon as it gets adequate funding to treat cancer!
Lawrence, Sheffield, UK
The NHS is already far too over-stretched to offer lifestyle treatments. I don't have kids, but should I want them, then that's a choice I'll have to make with my own pocket. It's bad enough that I'm funding the irresponsible large families who abuse the child support income, without paying for the conception too.
Pete, United Kingdom
People without kids are not sick. They should pay for their treatment out of their own pockets. They haven't got any children to shell out for; they should have plenty of spare cash.
Mark E, London UK
Think of the public outcry if free maternity services and terminations (pregnancy whether wanted or not, not being an illness) were limited to one per couple. It is also strange how the money to fund IVF always comes from cancer services or heart patients, never from termination of pregnancies or sexually transmitted disease funding.
Sally Chivers, Southampton, England
As an adopted person I can't help but feel that if you can't get pregnant after one round of IVF then maybe you should adopt. IVF is extremely expensive and does not always work. How much of your taxes go into the child welfare industry?? It is by far cheaper to adopt after the first failure of IVF. Plus, you also enrich the lives of someone who is actually alive and born. ADOPT!! There is no shame in it. There is shame in wasting NHS money repeatedly.
Kevin, Ottawa, Canada
Infertility is not a life-threatening disease. Children are not a necessity. Save NHS money for people who need it - not only does 'free' IVF cost us all money, but think of all the free milk, vitamins, education, family allowance etc that will be paid out to those who conceive. If I'd wanted to waste money on children, I'd have produced some myself.
Min Surtees, West Midlands, UK
I'm pragmatic enough to realise that a future population is that which will fund much of our generation's pensions when we need them (that's if there is one left by then), but ultimately the choice to have children is a lifestyle decision (there are no life-or-death health implications, for example). The service should be available, but the rest of us should not be paying for it (society is couple/sprognation-centric enough as it is)
Simon Ransome, Diss, Norfolk
I take it from the negative feedback on the NHS funding IVF treatment that these people either already have children or do not want any. And therefore have no idea the pain that infertility can cause, I have tried for 12 years for a baby and as of yet have not had any joy. I have watched friends and family have babies, and each time I rejoice in there happiness. In Cornwall we have no NHS funding for anything yet you go to another county and you get a tattoo removed on the NHS? I hope these people with the negative thoughts for us that are happy for IVF to be on the NHS, never have to suffer the pain that we do. Good luck to all those who get the treatment.
Petra, Saltash, Cornwall
| The NHS is already stretched to breaking point |
More should be done to encourage childless couples to adopt children. The NHS is already stretched to breaking point with providing healthcare for those who need it the most. There are more important things for the NHS to spend it's money on.
Craig, Liverpool Be thankful even one cycle is offered free of charge. When three times as many cycles to only offer a 50% increase in the chances of pregnancy it is clearly a very good way of throwing a lot of money at an ever-diminishing return. If someone still isn't pregnant after three cycles will they then claim they have the "right" to more cycles? When children are crying out for adoption why are we spending vast sums of money to create a genetic pattern that Nature has decided should not be created?
Nige, England
Since the birth-rate in this country is falling to unsustainable levels maybe responsible couples who want children but can't have them, and are willing to go through IVF should be given the chance.
TJ, UK
I do think IVF should be available on the NHS - people already receive treatment for all sorts of self-inflicted injuries and illness. And why should only childless, infertile couples be expected to adopt? To follow that argument to its logical conclusion fertile couples shouldn't have their own kids either if there are still children that are orphaned or need fostering.
Louise, Luton
I can't agree with free IVF treatment on the NHS. Surely the money can be put to more needed treatments/departments. But also, given the population is growing anyway, and we're effectively running out of space in the UK, shouldn't we be doing what we can to keep birth rates down, rather than do as much as possible to increase them. If these families can't conceive their own children, can't they adopt instead?
Matt W, Aylesbury, UK
I wouldn't have a problem with IVF being offered on the NHS. As long as it's only open to those that are childless. Anyone who has a child, and 'wants another' should finance IVF treatment themselves.
Mike, Bath
Yes, IVF should be funded on the NHS. My husband is a cancer survivor and this should be included as part of his cancer treatment. Infertility is a health problem. Why not include it? All the arguments about money are ridiculous. IVF funding is a drop in the bucket. There are few children for adoption and not enough for all infertile couples. Many children are not being adopted because they await parents of the same race. It's a pity to see the same lame arguments used over and over again.
Flopsy, London
One opportunity is fair, because I understand people's wish to have children of their own but I believe that is sufficient - if it doesn't work couples should be encouraged to adopt. Priority in the NHS must go to the people who are already here and in pain. Although the emotional anguish for those who want children can be terrible, they do have another option, whereas people in desperate need of life and death treatment do not.
Victoria Gossage, Irthlingborough, England
I agree that couples should be allowed a round of IVF under the NHS but I hope that before undergoing such treatment, the couple involved make sure that adoption isn't for them. It seems unfair that so many children remain unwanted while new ones are being created all the time.
Cat, Exeter, UK
Free treatment on the NHS at last! Some of the opinions listed have clearly been written by people who have no desire to become parents or have already had children naturally.
Chris, UK
| When essential services cannot cope, why bother adding extra demand needlessly? |
When one considers the vast number of people suffering in pain and on waiting lists, the notion of free IVF becomes unfeasible. A friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer and although not immediately life threatening could easily spread. He was told he would have to wait for 8 months for treatment on the NHS. This worried him greatly and he decided to pay for private treatment and have the operation straight away. My point is when essential services cannot cope, why bother adding extra demand needlessly?
James, Plymouth, England It would be great to be able to provide free IVF treatment on the NHS but to place this financial burden on a service that is already on its knees is madness.
Trystan Morris-Davies, Aberystwyth, Wales
So you don't want me to get IVF on the NHS? I've paid into this Govt for the whole of my 20 year working life, I'm 36 & have just found out I can't have children without IVF. Yes, we are going to pay for it ourselves but why shouldn't I be entitled to a bit back off the state? What about the tens of thousands in this country who don't contribute anything and have kids like shelling peas? It's people like me who work hard to pay for them - is it too much to ask for a little back ?
Claire, UK
I think IVF should be available to all on the NHS. Anyone with babies/children cannot know the pain and suffering caused by infertility. I also agree that treatments in other medical areas should be given priority. Maybe if the Government put took a stronger line with immigrants coming into the UK, there would be enough money in the NHS to help the our society. I have made NI contributions for 16 years and never had any NHS treatment. Some people come into our country and are entitled straightaway. It makes me mad.
Lisa, Romford, Essex
Why only in England and Wales what about Scotland? Couples also have fertility problems just as much as the rest of the country, they say it's not a lottery postcode anymore but they are still going to be punishing us.
Carol Lessels, St Andrews, Fife
We should direct resources towards the living. It is wrong to divert funds to allow IVF free. We are already trying to cover too much on the NHS.
Steve Clark, Evesham, UK
If the NHS is there to deal with for smoking related treatments, then it is totally unreasonable to expect IVF not to be funded and available! Infertility is not a choice.
Leona, Liverpool, England
| I don't doubt that those who want and can't have children find private IVF expensive but the NHS is short of money at the best of times |
I don't doubt that those who want and can't have children find private IVF expensive but the NHS is short of money at the best of times. Smokers DO pay a lot of extra money into the NHS in the form of the huge amounts of tax they pay but I'm not happy about the number of smoking related illnesses that get priority on the NHS either. The bottom line is that I pay for both and don't benefit from either so I say one chance is better than none - that way at least 25% fewer couples will need to pay.
Alex, Edinburgh I think that those people who aren't experiencing the misery associated with infertility should keep their comments to themselves until they fully understand the emotional upset involved. I would like them to live just one month in my shoes, to see the stress that infertility puts on myself and my husband. We both have good jobs and have paid our taxes and NI all our lives so why shouldn't we receive free IVF.
Val, Manchester
I wonder how many people who are opposed to IVF treatment being available on the NHS are either already parents or have no desire to have children. Have any of these people considered the heartache that childless couples go through in order to be given the chance to become parents. Maybe the focus should be on irresponsible parents who continue to have children they clearly can't provide for (or children they abuse) and who rely on state benefits which ultimately is just as costly to the tax payer.
Sarah Turner, Peterborough, Cambs
So the majority of people seem to think that IVF shouldn't be covered by the NHS. I wonder how many of these people were able to conceive naturally? I'll bet my last penny that if the boot was on the other foot, then they would have a change of heart. As a couple who have paid for IVF (twice), I wish it was available on the NHS. Perhaps smokers should pay for their cancer treatment. Their cancers are self-inflicted. Infertility isn't.
Mark and Karin Pope, Swindon, Wilts
I think infertile couples should get three cycles of IVF. Going by the stats you have a better chance after the first cycle. It would be a waste of money if everyone gets one cycle as it tends not to work first time.
Angela, Glasgow
I am very please IVF is coming on the NHS I can't have children. People who say we are playing god don't know want its like knowing you could never have children �3000 is a lot of money to find and I don't think I could find that much money in one go. All I want is a child to care for.
Jennifer Jones, Buckley
Instead of wasting money on IVF, why not help those childless couples adopt children? There are plenty of orphaned children who are missing loving parents in their lives.
Omar, Manchester UK
| I don't think we need a continually growing population anyway |
For similar reason to those already stated I don't think IVF should be funded, I also think that arguments about future population size are missing the point. If the cost of IVF was invested now rather than spent there would still be money available in the future for pensions etc. in just the same way that individuals pay into pension funds. I don't think we need a continually growing population anyway. Britain as a country is already crowded compared to many other western industrialised countries.
Ian, UK/USA In think it is fantastic that the government will give everyone the chance to become a parent. I have been trying to conceive for seven years without success, despite having had various check ups on both myself and my partner, nothing can be found to be wrong, and I was told to wait for a few more years and give nature a chance, I am 28 and once I get past 30 my chances of getting pregnant are slimmer.
Angela Milner, Bradford, West Yorkshire, England
I am very happy to hear that IVF will be available on the NHS. Why should it not? Yes, it is a choice to whether to have children, but when it is not possible it is very often a medical problem, and therefore should be available. Quite obviously those who are against it have not been through the heartbreak of miscarriage and problems conceiving. Live through this before you cast you opinion!
Tracy Ingram, Crawley, UK
Instead of wasting public money on IVF treatment, wouldn't it be better spent placing the children that are crying out for adoption?
David, Oldbury, UK
Yes! The NHS should assist quality of life options. Not just basic healthcare.
Graham, UK
We live in strange times - society is witnessing the breakdown of the family unit and yet everyone seems to think they have the right to have children. Isn't the NHS stretched enough without having to pay for IVF as well?
Gavin, Bristol UK
I'm sorry if this upsets childless couples, but I find the notion of taking resources away from the NHS to fund fertility treatment indefensible. The NHS has to prioritise life and death issues, followed by chronic pain. At a time when people are waiting two years in agony for a hip replacement, for example, I'm appalled at the notion that funding would have to be diverted to fertility treatment. The fact that there are so many children in need of fostering and adoption is also very relevant.
Helen, Manchester
| I felt a complete failure when my first two attempts didn't work |
We couldn't have IVF on the NHS as we didn't live in the right area, we had to pay for our 3 attempts our self although our doctor did help us out with the drugs on some cases. Its a very stressful process and can cause break ups between the couple. Your hormones are mucked up and sometimes you can be the woman from hell. If more financial help was available that would take some of the stress away. I felt a complete failure when my first two attempts didn't work, my husband worked hard for the money and I felt like I had just thrown it away for him. We landed up going to a loan company to borrow money to have our last attempt and although getting that loan led to the start of a financial disaster we have a beautiful daughter who is 8 now and is our whole world. I don't regret the situation in what it left us as we have got ourselves straight now but the NHS help would have been nice.
Mary, UK I think this is outrageous. So many people in the UK can't get the cancer and other treatment they need for serious illnesses due to lack of funding and 'Lottery' postcodes. The NHS should be used solely for treating the population we already have, not for creating new members of it.
Jane, UK
| I really feel that less emphasis should be put on IVF and more on adoption |
It may be different when you are in the situation where you can't have children but I really feel that less emphasis should be put on IVF and more on adoption. What's the point of paying over and over for something that may not be successful when you could adopt a child who really needs a family.
Cat, Cambridge UK I think the NHS is already under pressure to help terminal patients or help people who are really suffering. To pay large amounts towards IVF when there's no guarantee it'll work will not be taken kindly by people on 3 year waiting lists for hip replacements etc There are many orphans or children being put up for adoption, maybe couples can look at adopting or fostering.
David Hilton, Hudds, UK
The NHS shouldn't be offering IVF treatments at all - the health service is cash-strapped enough without wasting money on NON-ESSENTIAL treatments like IVF. I wouldn't mind a boob job, but I don't expect the NHS to give me one for free!
J, Northern Ireland
Although I have sympathy for those who cannot conceive, the rise in infertility must surely be linked to career women wanting to "have it all" and delaying motherhood into their mid 30s. Fertility begins to decline at 27 and women need to realise that if they want to have a family they and need to think about babies in their mid 20s, rather the fashion for late babies. I am an unmarried Mum, but I feel couples should also have to be married to be considered for free IVF.
Lisa P, Lancs, UK
Absolutely not! If you can't afford to pay for IVF you can't afford to bring up a child.
Amy, Hove, UK
Absolutely not, why should I pay for someone else's lifestyle choice? It is my lifestyle choice to not have children and have nice holidays instead is anyone going to pay for me?
Lee B, Eastbourne, UK
Absolutely not - the NHS should not be funding this sort of treatment in the first place. Part of the reason our health care system is in such a mess is that the demand for non-essential treatments that we place on it are too great. Also, the point about paying for treatment in order to increase our population so that future generations can pay for our pensions is specious: we should be taking responsibility for ourselves and saving for our own pensions, not relying on future generations to do so.
Carolyn Relihan, London, UK The statistics show that 1 couple out of 7 are having trouble conceiving. That is very worrying for the future. Infertility can be caused due to a bad lifestyle (drugs, alcohol, fatty food, smoking), but if it means that in 30 years' time, there would be 20 million youngsters feeding 40 million OAPS, then something is wrong and we have to start acting now. As things are, IVF is not a want anymore, it is essential for the future.
Seema, UK
Why shouldn't women in a stable relationship with their partner be denied the right to have children! For some people it is the only option to have IVF because due to unfortunate circumstances they can't naturally get pregnant.
Amelia, Stoke-On-Trent, UK
While there are still people on NHS waiting lists for other treatments, absolutely not! This is so indicative of the selfish 'me, me, me' society in which we live. No doubt lots of people will post about their 'right' to have a child. I hope that while exercising their right they remember all the pensioners on waiting lists who have a right to live a life free from pain. Plus all the existing children who need NHS treatments or need adoptive parents.
Zoe, Oxford
Very simple answer to that and it is no! IVF is a want and not essential, it's a waste of resources and money should be spent on medicine for the sick rather than making babies.
Kevin D, Eastbourne, UK
Surely it is fairer if everyone has one opportunity instead of the current system where some people have unlimited opportunities and others have none.
Carol, Basildon, UK
There are two ways of looking at this, my first instinct is that we shouldn't be funding any IVF treatment at all from an overstretched NHS budget. On the other hand, the birth rate is falling and so is our population. We really need people to have children or there'll be nobody to pay for our pensions!
Jane F, Cambridge, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
