THE SUN - ARTICLE ON IVF TODAY

[lainey]

Did anyone read the article in The Sun today?

It was about IVF and interviewed 3 couples in different parts of Britain.

I had no idea IVF was a postal Lottory.

1 Couple did not qualify because they were 14 miles outside the area for 1 free shot of IVF, They then spent 20k on 4 Cycles of IVF.

Another couple had to re mortgage there house take out loans and credit cards, eventually they were blessed with a baby via ivf.

Another couple managed to get 3 Free shots, and got pregnant on the third shot.

FEW THINGS ABOUT "CERTAIN AREAS"

Interestingly in certain areas hospitals now will only give you IVF if you have be infertile for the past 3 years.... if you have already concieved a child naturally you wont be considered...... only women aged 19-35 will be considered..... Some offer no free goes, some offer 3. Private clinics will cost from anything 3000 - 6500 for 1 shot of ivf. UK statistics for successful IVF or almost half if you go abraod!!!!


It was a really interesting article... what made me take note was a girl who took 6 years too concieve, her partner had low sperm count so they tried for few years naturally, then IVF, at 25 years of age she has her baby but is thousands and thousands of pounds in debt (some start for a new baby coming into your life and your in that much debt)

Its very worrying

 

[libs]

My brother and sil can't get any IVF attempts courtesy of the NHS. The waiting list is so long locally that if they went on it - they would be too old by the time their turn came round. The doctors told them to forget free IVF. He's 32, she's 30

 

[lainey]

ITS DISGUSTING!!!!

 

[jenna]

well they let that 75 year old have IVF, hello she looked like a great great great great grandmother!! Idiots. grr hate the NHS

 

[Nicola]

well they let that 75 year old have IVF, hello she looked like a great great great great grandmother!! Idiots. grr hate the NHS

That wasn't in Britain. There is an upper age limit on IVF in this country which for most UK clinics is about 51. Yes IVF can be a postcode lottery but it's also dependant on a few other rules etc, i.e. if a husband has a child from a previous marraige but the wife doesnt they don't qualify as together they are not childless despite the wife's inability to naturally concieve, or if the husband is infertile after say a vasectomy and failed reversal they will not qualify as "he intentially made himself infertile" it would be a different story if the man had undergone cancer treatments and was left infertile. There are so many different factors to consider with IVF and although an expensive treatment statistically you have more chances per cycle of getting pregnant than you do a natural TTC cycle. If you undergo 3 cycles of IVF the odds are that you will concieve on one of those cycles and if that is the case the financial implications are not worth bankruptcy or thousands of pounds worth of debt really, most people owe more on their credit cards etc than a cycle of IVF costs. I do think some of the rules surrounding IVF are completely unfair, others are realistic but it's like everything else, some people will agree, some won't. It's the same type of lottery etc that exists for whether you might qualify for the better cancer drugs, the donor list is shorter for medical care or organ transplant etc...some people who get it think it's fine, others who don't will moan about it.

 

[jenna]

Sorry i thought it was in the uk

 

[Urchin]

My friend's partner has a problem with his sperm, they have no tails so can't swim anywhere, so they have zero chance of conceiveing naturally.
They have a 5 year old they got through IVF and have had 3 unsucessful goes since him. They don't qualify for a free go because they already have a child.
They just can't afford to keep doing IVF, it's such a shame they want another child so badly

 

[glitzyglamgirl]

My friend's partner has a problem with his sperm, they have no tails so can't swim anywhere, so they have zero chance of conceiveing naturally.
They have a 5 year old they got through IVF and have had 3 unsucessful goes since him. They don't qualify for a free go because they already have a child.
They just can't afford to keep doing IVF, it's such a shame they want another child so badly

Thats a real shame, I think that people who have a medical reason preventing them from getting pregnant should have more access to IVF than those who just havnt got pregnant yet for no apparant reason.

I know that I'll get one free go on IVF here, and while im a bit disapointed because they say the failure rate on the first go is pretty high, I know I still have a chance of getting pregnant naturally. Id be even more gutted if I knew there was a problem preventing me from getting pregnant atall.

It does seem very unfair that couples with medical problems cant get IVF after thier first child!

 

[Gem & Leland]

im scared at the thought that i'll need ivf , i will never get down to the weight that they'd agree to give it to me , thnk id need loose something like 6 stone, and dont think they if i could loose 6 stone i would have by now !

so id have to go private

 

[libs]

If it's a problem with the man's little swimmers - there is always the way we're trying - donation. Only costs us our travel and a hotel bill once a month

 

[Nicola]

Donation is an option for non-swimmers but along side IVF they could also have ICSI a procedure where they select a sperm (remove the tail if there is one - regardless of whether it works or not) and inject it into the egg that was collected via the IVF procedure. ICSI costs an additional £1,000 (roughly, dependant on area/clinic) but it would mean a chance of the couple having a child that biologically belonged to them both although I know couples having donation consider the child to be theirs, the Dad will go on the birth certificate all the same etc but some people struggle with the biological child or not issue. It's tough.

I didn't realise there were so many people in the forum who are considering undergoing fertility treatment.

 

[libs]

but if they're struggling to pay for IVF already...

We could have had the option to have sperm removed from my husband using a needle and then IVF or to try an expensive reversal for my husband. And then still end up with no child and penniless.

We'd rather spend the money on the child...

 

[Nicola]

Yes the needle extraction is called SSR (surgical sperm retrieval) the first thing they try is PESA (Percutaneous Epididymal Sperm Aspiration) where sperm is collected via needle from the tubes etc. If they find nothing there they have to go further into a procedure they call TESA (TEsticular Sperm Aspiration) which is basically like taking a tiny paper punch into the 'balls' and snipping out bits of tissue...they find the sperm hidden in the layers that way. That procedure itself is in the region of £2,000. A vasectomy reversal is about the same price but depending on the time past since the original vasectomy it might be pointless, i.e. if the vasectomy was 2 years ago I'd say a reversal was a worth while investment but if your talking 15 years ago the chances are pretty much slim to none that it will work.

 

[mrs_tommo22]

I read a few articles recent ly that the best place to go for IVF believe it or not is india, is a lot cheaper and they have a much better percentage of success.
Britain is crap for IVF and I think itds a disgrace that anyone has to pay for treatment of wanting a baby, it makes me so mad.

 

[libs]

Yes the needle extraction is called SSR (surgical sperm retrieval) the first thing they try is PESA (Percutaneous Epididymal Sperm Aspiration) where sperm is collected via needle from the tubes etc. If they find nothing there they have to go further into a procedure they call TESA (TEsticular Sperm Aspiration) which is basically like taking a tiny paper punch into the 'balls' and snipping out bits of tissue...they find the sperm hidden in the layers that way. That procedure itself is in the region of £2,000. A vasectomy reversal is about the same price but depending on the time past since the original vasectomy it might be pointless, i.e. if the vasectomy was 2 years ago I'd say a reversal was a worth while investment but if your talking 15 years ago the chances are pretty much slim to none that it will work.

OOkay I don't even have the bits they're sticking the needles in and I'm still crossing my legs in imagined pain

 

[Nicola]

Britain is crap for IVF

I think a lot of ladies who recieved treatment in the UK and have gone on to have children thanks to the treatment(s) avaliable would disagree with that. A lot of methods in other countries are not always proven or registered by the repective medical boards or fertility councils. People who are successful a lot of time after a trip to say the USA or Spain for treatment (it has been said) is linked to the fact that they are on 3-4 weeks holiday while they undergo the treatment, are under less stress etc and just relax at their hotel or visit monuments/attractions etc while going through the procedures instead of working, paying bills, coming home to cooking and cleaning etc. The more you rest and relax about it the higher the chances of success. I really do disagree with the Britain is crap for IVF statement, I really do.

 

[mrs_tommo22]

When i say britain is crap for IVF i am meaning that its appalling that you only get 1 shot at IVF, and if that fails you have to cough up.sorry you dont agree with me, but i never asked you too. I am merely stating how i feel personally about it.

 

[Nicola]

Perhaps you should have stated that then, your original post read as though the actual treatment women recieve in the UK is dreadful - the way the treatment is a lottery and who does and doesn't qualify yes, it is dreadful, it really needs to be more uniform and consistant in my opinion too, I agree with you there. I just ready your original post as being that British IVF treatment was bad - I didn't read it as the way treatment is given to some and not others as the bad thing. I agree with that. The treatment itself is good, the who can/can't have it isn't.

 

[lainey]

When i say britain is crap for IVF i am meaning that its appalling that you only get 1 shot at IVF, and if that fails you have to cough up.sorry you dont agree with me, but i never asked you too. I am merely stating how i feel personally about it.

To be honest iv totally read up on IVF 100s of web pages and booklets and Britain does have the worst success rates - am not implying that the care you recieve from Britain is worst (AS I WOULDNT KNOW SO WOULD NOT LIKE TO COMMENT) But regarding the chances it is lower.

I would have to disagree with the fact that because you go abroad your more relaxed - when you go abroad for IVF its not a holiday! you still have all the same day to day stresses and anxietys of wanting a child.... I would say being in a strange country and foreign doctors would add to the anxiety!!!! and pressure of IVF.

The difference with abroad and Britain is our healthcare. Abroad spend more time on research into infertility than Britain does, the statistics reflect this. Also cost is alot cheaper....

 

[mrs_tommo22]

Sorry i didnt mean to sound like a total cow to anyone, its just i feel very strongly about the way britain doles out IVF and I have not personally had it, but i know many people, friends and family who have, and have their one shot and if they fail to become pregnant thats it, allo ver unless they can come up with the money. It makes me sick with anger to see dear friends who want a child more then anything else in the world suffer because the NHS hasnt got its priorities right, and to top it off i read in the sun yesterday 5that lincolnshire will no longewr be doing IVF treatment or paying for it because its not classed as essential medical treatment.
How wrong can the goverment get it?

I have been doing some readin g and it seems that on the third go of IVF a lot of women then get pregnant, so why cant britain pay for 3 lots of IVF treatment fir those that cant afford it.