The BBC churned out another piece of pro-NHS drivel this morning in a “debate” between chief executive of Nice, Sir Andrew Dillon, and Justine Bold, a woman who’s spent more than £33,000 on fertility treatment at 43. You see the upper age at which women should receive IVF on the NHS is now being increased from 39 to 40-42. Oh, and it’s also going to be available for gay people. Well, it’s not as if we are in a recession or anything and it’s certainly not as if anyone who opposes such wanton NHS profligacy is ever going to be invited onto the Today programme!
IVF FOR ALL!
Bookmark the permalink.
I always feel that those who complain about the cost of IVF have no idea what children cost once they have arrived.
Of course they don’t. They expect the State (a.k.a. you and me) to pay for the kids too.
Strange how those groups in society favoured in the pages of the Guardian and the New Statesman seem to be well provided for by the taxpayer.
Wasn’t it N.I.C.E. which refused treatment for cancer sufferers on the grounds of cost? It seems no price is too high for the single issue and special interest groups.
Why should taxpayers fund treatment for what is essentially a lifestyle choice? No doubt should the IVF or surrogacy be successful, we taxpayers will be funding the resulting kids throughout their lives with allowances and benefits.
There’s inequality in this country all right. It’s not between the haves and the have nots but favoured social groups and the rest of us.
Apparently IVF treatment is going to be given to “same sex couples who find it hard to conceive(????)” I think they will find it bloody impossible to conceive!!
Reminds me of, I think, Churchill on ‘familiarity breeding contempt’: ‘Without a certain amount of familiarity, it is hard to breed anything’
Which just leaves contempt, ironically enough.
As I said in the Telegraph (and, surprisingly, got away with it): Upthebumnokids.
The BBC News website’s take on this is just as biased. It features no-one who disagrees with the NICE recommendations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18143587
Any BBC website reader reading that article might, indeed, come away with the firm impression that EVERYONE agrees that the NHS should raise the age and that no issue arises from it.
I thought I’d Google around to see if the BBC is reflecting the issue fairly. The answer is ‘No, they aren’t.’
Checking the ‘Telegraph’ website, their article on the same subject doesn’t only give one side of the argument, unlike the BBC’s account.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9281534/Gay-couples-and-women-over-40-to-get-free-IVF-treatment-on-NHS.html
Unsurprisingly, the ‘Telegraph’ offers BOTH sides of the argument. Like the BBC report it quotes from Andrew Dillon and Justine Bold, but also finds space to report the opposing point of view – including the point DV makes in his post:
‘Fertility experts also questioned whether health authorities could afford to widen eligibility criteria, when only a quarter currently fund three cycles of IVF for infertile couples, as recommended by Nice.
Gedis Grudzinskas, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Barts and the Royal London Hospital, said that while the new guidance reflects “social changes” there were questions over whether NHS trusts could afford it.
“How do we reconcile the changes in society and equality of access to healthcare, with the economic predicament?” he said.’
The ‘Telegraph’ account also features quotes from people for and against an extension to cover same-sex couples.
The ‘Telegraph’ piece is proper, balanced reporting. The BBC’s piece is completely one-sided propaganda.
This is a very clear example of BBC bias, regardless of what you might think about the issue itself. The BBC reporter responsible for this piece of biased reporting is Michelle Roberts, Health editor, BBC News online.
Surely this is sexist maan.
A tight NHS budget should be allocated on need-not possession of appropriate reproductive equipment.
Will Jenni Murray back this mans demand to have IVF?…it`s my right I tells ya!
Be seeing Calderdale NHS Trust in court then, will I?
For the life in I just cannot get my head around the NHS and their way of thinking. I mean they are bitching about cuts yet spending has actually increased under this government.
Yet this is the NHS which to be honest isn’t fit for purpose. While they are bitching about how the present government wants to make them accountable to the taxpayer they instead lavish money on:
80 year old pensioners who want a sex change.
IVF treatment to illegal immigrants.
Free medical treatment to anybody who walks through the door.
Free Aids treatment to anybody who can get to the UK
Fought (And won) against testing Immigrants to the Uk
for : HIV,TB and the like saying it is offensive to do so and would simply send it underground.
Brought in a large number of HIV positive nurses from Africa to work here
Operates a third world service
and now they are going to offer IVF treatment to older folk.
Disgusting
Well summarised. Another reminder that we are living on planet Zog. It is so surreal it’s like a phoney war, people not accepting the inevitable, pretending everything will be alright and we can carry on as before, extending priveleges indefinitely and the government will always pay. The massive correction needed to our overspending is yet to come, and when it does crap like this will be just a distant dream. For 43 year-old childless women scavenging in dustbins for food, having a kid will be the last thing on their minds.
…”the NHS and their way of thinking”..
It’s not rocket science. The more they overload the system, the more they think they can demand a bigger share of resources. A bigger problem is their idea of a solution.
Every department in a hospital is fighting for their share of the cake. Claiming to be overwhelmed by demand is standard practice. Anything which increases demand is good. If you were director of Sexual Health, a decline in AIDS patients is a disaster. Planeloads of infected Africans is a godsend, especially as the DH sanctions entitlement to free AIDS treatment for (overseas) “students”. You would not be suprised to find how many “new cases” are students “infected abroad”
If people became more healthy doctors see their departments shrivel. More disease = more resources. The NHS is the most popular dysfunctional system I have ever seen.
Some vacuous bint on PM said that the cost of putting herself through IVF was exorbitant but it should be on the NHS because it’s a small price to pay.
And was, of course, not challenged on this nonsensical incoherence by the statist Beeboid (Eddie Mair, I think).
So, to summarise: If I have to pay for it it’s too expensive. But if someone else – ie you – pay for it on my behalf, well, it’s a bargain and you should be grateful.
What the F*** is the point of offering IVF treatment to Gay men? Where is the foetus going to gestate? This truly is political correctness gone mad!
In a box?
“We’re going to fight for his RIGHT to have babies!”
It really has got so surreal, Stan/Loretta would be in seventh heaven (and Reg would be spinning in his grave).
On the subject of NHS spend; I was waiting to see a consultant today. There was a fully qualified nurse at many thousands of pounds/annum manning the reception desk. Reason; they might have to weigh you or take blood pressure.
Total waste of resource. This is a job that could be done by a minimum wage (if such a thing exists in the NHS) clerk and patients referred to a nurse station which would serve the whole dept for such tests.
Looked like she was playing patience (cards) on the computer most of the time I was waiting.
the NHS has been a fat bloated dinosaur for years, but don’t you try and change it, no siree. All governments are sh*t scared to make the changes that are desperately needed to this outdated money pit. As for nurses, being a nurse used to be a vocation, a calling, where you actually cared about people first, now its a career choice and most of them flounce about thinking they are bloody Doctors, leaving the poor patients lying in their own sh*t.
“No one has the right to a child on the NHS”
By Sandra Parsons.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2148382/No-right-child-NHS.html#ixzz1vgm8jTPR
Being unable to conceive is not an illness. Your health is not harmed by being infertile. Only if you believe you have a “right” to have a child does it enter the health domain. It is a social need, not a medical one. If you want a child and can’t, pay for it like any other social need.
I recently discovered something else about this whole issue.
A couple I know applied for IVF on the NHS and were offered it despite the fact that they have two children – from the female partner’s two previous relationships. What is at issue in this case is the male’s infertility: it seems that a couple can receive IVF if they do not have a child THEMSELVES, although they may have other dependents!!