They're not being punished. While I don't think the numbers of kids waiting for adoption should have any relevance as to whether the NHS pays for IVF or not it is silly to portray a lack of finding for it as a punishment.
IVF, NHS & Kids waiting for adoption.
- Thread starter Resident
- Start date
They're not being punished. While I don't think the numbers of kids waiting for adoption should have any relevance as to whether the NHS pays for IVF or not it is silly to portray a lack of finding for it as a punishment.
You could say that about any number of treatments... and indeed you could probably increase the NHS budget dramatically by including loads of things that individually only take up a small portion of it. It doesn't seem like a very sound argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 4,681
- Location
- Bromley, Kent
Seems fair for what it is. Infertility is a medical condition as such the treatment costs for it are quite reasonable so I don't see why it should be unfunded or subsidised.
I also don't see adoption rates going up just because it becomes unavailable. Adoption seems to be a very very difficult decision, process and taxing activity. People mostly want kids because of their lineage otherwise any kid is the same as any other and I'm sure any parent will tell you thats flatly not the case. Id wager most adopting parents also have biological children
- GP
Well it is expensive for a start and there are perhaps other areas that NHS trusts might wish to prioritise.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 4,681
- Location
- Bromley, Kent
As above, I really don't think it's that expensive for what it is at 0.0032% (the argument of the money could be spent better elsewhere is flacid as it could be said for a lot of things depending on what it is along with being entirely subjective to opinion) - I doubt either of us will change our opinion on that so seems little point in debating further, HOWEVER it does raise 2 interesting points from your comments:
- What IS funded that likely shouldn't be
- What ISNT funded (or is subsidised) that should be
- GP
Edit: No intention of taking this off topic...
Last edited:
As others have pointed out a lot of thoose children awaiting adoption, including thoose under 5, will come with rather serious behavioral and health issues that are often the result of the circumstances leading them to requiring adoption in the first place.
Adoption of such children is a big undertaking for a family.
Humans, like most animals, have an unsurprising general prefence for spending time and resources raising biologically related children rather then the alternative.
Adoption of such children is a big undertaking for a family.
Humans, like most animals, have an unsurprising general prefence for spending time and resources raising biologically related children rather then the alternative.
Well not really, there is some objectivity when assessing the cost and benefits of treatments offered.
You've again gone back to highlighting some percentage, which as pointed out already misses the point. It's costs several thousand pounds.
As for what is/isn't funded. Lots of things, varying by trust. I'm sure that individually you can trott out the flawed % argument, but collectively you'd be looking at bankrupting the NHS. Point is there is a finite budget, spend thousands per patient on one treatment and you've got less to spend elsewhere.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 4,681
- Location
- Bromley, Kent
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
If that was true then the Cuckoo would not exist who's survival relies on other species of birds bringing it up in the nest
There are also plenty of other documented cases of a different species raising offspring that is not biologically their own
I think you'll find that the majority of animals are less picky than humans when it comes to raising babies
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 682
I believe that IVF should be equally available throughout the UK. My wife and I have a son via IVF courtesy of the NHS. We were offered 2 cycles and were successful on the second attempt, whereas 'over the border' we would have been offered 3 cycles. If we had failed with our second attempt it would have caused a great deal if pain, especially for my wife.
Personally I had little interest in adopting due to the fear of taking on a damaged/problem child risking ruining my life/marriage. My wife was/is very much pro-adoption.
I think the main difference between birth/adoption is that within 2 minutes of my son being born I loved him unconditionally. This would obviously not be the case with an adopted child.
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for unloved children I don't feel the answer is to force infertile couples into adoption. A better solution would be for the government to better support adopting parents or to minimise the number of children being born to useless adults.
Personally I had little interest in adopting due to the fear of taking on a damaged/problem child risking ruining my life/marriage. My wife was/is very much pro-adoption.
I think the main difference between birth/adoption is that within 2 minutes of my son being born I loved him unconditionally. This would obviously not be the case with an adopted child.
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for unloved children I don't feel the answer is to force infertile couples into adoption. A better solution would be for the government to better support adopting parents or to minimise the number of children being born to useless adults.
I'm not sure it is clear that the cuckoo hasn't simply tricked the bird whose nest it invades. Regardless, pointing out adoption in the animal kingdom doesn't refute his point re: a preference. You could equally cite monkeys where the dominant male kills all babies in the group after taking over etc..
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2016
- Posts
- 693
With an ageing population, and a segment of the population determined to significantly reduce immigration, I think we need as many babies born as possible.
I'm for it, and perfectly happy for my taxes to go towards it. Money can be saved in so many other areas to fund it.
I'm for it, and perfectly happy for my taxes to go towards it. Money can be saved in so many other areas to fund it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
Well the point is, most animals will raise whatever is in their nest/den
If you were to randomly put an orphan into a persons house who has applied for IVF their response would be likely "this is not the child I want" ergo humans are more picky than animals
bit of a different scenario
if you were to leave a baby in a basket on someone's doorstep they'd likely take it in and call the authorities, make sure it is OK etc.. too
albeit we live in a society where we have services to look after an abandoned baby, an animal doesn't, the empathy towards a defenceless baby is still there in humans though
suppose we didn't and we humans lived in some sparsely populated planet, I'd suspect that most people wouldn't deliberately leave a baby to starve to death (assuming they had sufficient resources)
none of this is particularly relevant to the point made by the other poster re: having a preference for your own biological offspring. You can have a preference for your own offspring and also have empathy towards and abandoned baby that would otherwise die.
You are aware that cuckoo use deception to trick other species into raising their young righr?
I don't quite know how you at all think you post disproves my point?
A human male may be deceived by his partner into providing for a child be believes to be his but actually is not because if he was aware the child actually wasn't his he might decline to provide for the child.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2001/03/secret-cuckoo-deception
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
While it is true that animals/people prefer to raise their biological offspring, i don't think that should be a point for or against whether you should get it on the NHS or not.
We foot the bill for a lot of unnecessary things.
Drunk people, criminal etc etc.
Out of all the things we shouldn't pay for I'd say this is low down on list.
Feels more and more like we will soon have to enable a part NHS part Private health care system as its just getting more and more expensive
Drunk people, criminal etc etc.
Out of all the things we shouldn't pay for I'd say this is low down on list.
Feels more and more like we will soon have to enable a part NHS part Private health care system as its just getting more and more expensive
If you were to randomly put a young animal into the lair, set etc of another species of animal in most cases they would at best be ignored and more likely they would be killed.
Animals looking after other species offspring are newsworthy as they are unusual circumstances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
Whereas an animal will continue to provide for the young regardless if they're aware or not
We're not talking about blind animals, they can all see, they should all be able to distinguish between an offspring of their own vs one that isn't yet they simply don't care
Humans however would likely start asking questions and the male abandon the home if the baby had visible traits that weren't common with both parents ie a Caucasian couple having an African/Asian baby with no prior genetic lineage to those races
Cuckoo are quite Crafty. But not every bird could be a cuckoo!
They even have genetics that make the egg they lay look like the target species of bird. And yes, its completely deception