PDA

View Full Version : Free IVF Treatment for Murderers?



M Swanson
29-Dec-12, 19:53
Do you think it's right that the European Court of Rights is to force us to give state-funded IVF, to convicted murderers, rapists, etc? Thanks to tax-funded Legal Aid, (£20,000), one killer has already won the right to treatment and received £18,000 damages in the process. Already four more murderers and a drug dealer are demanding the same rights and the Government may be "powerless to refuse." Yet 60% of 45K women who underwent fertility treatment last year, were forced to pay for it.

And a few of you wonder why our NHS is buckling under the weight of countless examples such as this? Will this 'positive discrimination;' edicts from the ECHR and madness ever end? Thank you Blair! Grrrrr!

Alrock
29-Dec-12, 20:20
If state funded IVF is available it should be available to all, you can't pick & choose who is deserving & who is not, where do you draw the line & who makes that decision?

The question you should be asking is.... Should the state be funding IVF?

feda16
29-Dec-12, 20:27
some people lose their rights when they go to jail for murder rape etc. end of. The innocent uprising against this kind is starting to happen, just like in India, if the government does not make a judgement on these people, the public will and the public will all vote the same way.

Alrock
29-Dec-12, 21:15
some people lose their rights when they go to jail for murder rape etc. end of. The innocent uprising against this kind is starting to happen, just like in India, if the government does not make a judgement on these people, the public will and the public will all vote the same way.

Why should people lose their rights just because they are in jail, they are still citizens & should still have rights....
Besides, the OP is not talking about people in jail but people who are ex-convicts (I presume), have they not served their time?

Southern-Gal
29-Dec-12, 22:21
The question you should be asking is.... Should the state be funding IVF?


A very good question.
Surely the lives that already exist ought to be treated first before new life is created? With so many patients being refused different types of drugs due purely to the expense then maybe it is time to put all NHS funded IVF on hold?

Oddquine
29-Dec-12, 22:45
Do you think it's right that the European Court of Rights is to force us to give state-funded IVF, to convicted murderers, rapists, etc? Thanks to tax-funded Legal Aid, (£20,000), one killer has already won the right to treatment and received £18,000 damages in the process. Already four more murderers and a drug dealer are demanding the same rights and the Government may be "powerless to refuse." Yet 60% of 45K women who underwent fertility treatment last year, were forced to pay for it.

And a few of you wonder why our NHS is buckling under the weight of countless examples such as this? Will this 'positive discrimination;' edicts from the ECHR and madness ever end? Thank you Blair! Grrrrr!

Shouldn't be free IVF treatment for anybody at all! If we are trying to persuade/force condoms on the third world to reduce their populations, because the world is perceived as overloaded with people.....is it only me who thinks it is much more than hypocritical for the Western taxpayer to be funding an increase in our populations?

Oddquine
29-Dec-12, 22:50
Why should people lose their rights just because they are in jail, they are still citizens & should still have rights....
Besides, the OP is not talking about people in jail but people who are ex-convicts (I presume), have they not served their time?

It has always seemed to me, that, if I believed in God (which I don't) I'd be thinking that infertility, homosexuality etc was God's way of trying to curb the population levels....and we are bucking God's will just because we can, not because we have to!

M Swanson
29-Dec-12, 23:52
Why should people lose their rights just because they are in jail, they are still citizens & should still have rights....
Besides, the OP is not talking about people in jail but people who are ex-convicts (I presume), have they not served their time?

When people kill, rape, or commit any other barbaric crime then I believe they forfeit the right to demand anything from society. What rights did they give their victims? None! I didn't mention it, but the IVF treatment that has been granted under the European Court of Rights, is for convicted criminals who are serving long sentences. The one quoted, who was awarded £18K, is currently serving 15 years for beating a man to death. Should he have the right to procreate whilst incarcerated? Or should taxpayers be expected to bankroll another single parent and her child, for years, in addition to paying £40K a year for keeping the convicted father? And why should we be bound by the directives of any other authority which has been placed higher than our own democratically elected Government and judiciary? I say it again, it's sheer madness, imo! Let's just be grateful Alrock, that the man beaten to death wasn't your, or my, father, brother, or any other kin! Imagine how very let down and hurt his family must feel. Not forgetting too, those languishing on the end of a very long queue, in order to be blessed with a child of their own. It's so unfair! In fact, I think it's criminal!

M Swanson
29-Dec-12, 23:59
some people lose their rights when they go to jail for murder rape etc. end of. The innocent uprising against this kind is starting to happen, just like in India, if the government does not make a judgement on these people, the public will and the public will all vote the same way.

I'm with you Feda. I do think public opinion is changing, because of issues like this. But will anything much be done? Sadly, I seriously doubt it. I sometimes think the damage done, (by Blair and his cohorts,) is beyond repair. I hope I'm wrong!

M Swanson
30-Dec-12, 00:13
Yes, but an even better question would be .... Should the state be funding hundreds and thousands of single mothers who choose a baby as a career move and have them by feckless fathers, who very often contribute nothing to raising them? Not long ago, I watched a programme about a young woman who had six children, by five different men. The father of her two children made an appearance and also his brother who was allegedly there to talk some sense into this irresponsible couple who declared - "Everybody does it. It's what we boys do!" Now, who do you think deserves some help? People such as these, or the comparatively small number of couples (who probably work and pay their dues), and all they want in life is a child? Is it really too much to ask? Not in my book.

Alrock
30-Dec-12, 02:18
.....The one quoted, who was awarded £18K, is currently serving 15 years for beating a man to death.....

Now, why didn't you say that in the first place?
Then, No, not whilst he is imprisoned, there is no conjugal visits for other prisoners to get someone pregnant at so why should an exception made for IVF


....Should the state be funding hundreds and thousands of single mothers who choose a baby as a career move and have them by feckless fathers, who very often contribute nothing to raising them? Not long ago, I watched a programme about a young woman who had six children, by five different men. The father of her two children made an appearance and also his brother who was allegedly there to talk some sense into this irresponsible couple who declared - "Everybody does it. It's what we boys do!" Now, who do you think deserves some help? People such as these, or the comparatively small number of couples (who probably work and pay their dues), and all they want in life is a child? Is it really too much to ask? Not in my book.

Who are they funding?
The feckless parents or the innocent children who never had any choice in who their parents are, so at least deserve some semblance of a "normal" life?

What would you do?
Compulsory Abortion?
Compulsory Sterilisation of those you deem unsuitable to be parents?
All the children taken into care? (At what cost both financially & socially)
Or maybe you could suggest a better idea?

M Swanson
30-Dec-12, 09:05
Now, why didn't you say that in the first place?
Then, No, not whilst he is imprisoned, there is no conjugal visits for other prisoners to get someone pregnant at so why should an exception made for IVF


Well, in truth it didn't dawn on me that I would need to, so my apologies for that!

Pleased to add your name to the majority vote, so far, in recording your "no." :cool:

squidge
30-Dec-12, 10:42
Of course people serving a sentence should not participate in IVF. However once they are released then they should have access to all NHS services including IVF.

Of course we should fund IVF. Something isnt working properly and IVF can overcome that. My thyroid gland doesnt work properly so i get medical help to overcome that, my husbands kidney wasnt working properly and so he got treatment to overcome that, my eyes dont work properly but i get help to overcome that too. Why should a uterus and ovaries be treated differently. The NHS treats impotence so why wouldnt it treat infertility?

As for career single mothers well im sure the lads concerned had feckless tattooed on their foreheads so the girls were able to stand them next to the offer of a job and choose..... Hmmm lets see .... Feckless youth? Full time well paid work? The feckless youth would win any time I am sure..... And there are sooooo many jobs around..... but then .... Shock horror .... I have five children from two different men... And I CHOSE single parenthood for a time and left my job to do it. A career choice... Aye right!

feda16
30-Dec-12, 12:25
Lets say something happened to me on the way home from a night out, i was beaten almost to death, i manage to pull through and the convicted gets jailed for 20 years. In that 20 years in jail he gets broody and thinks he wants some kids but cant have any because of his infertility. So he decides takes it to a panel where he feels he has the rights for kids but due to infertility he feels he has the same rights as a couple out in the world trying for kids who are law abiding citizens. So lets look at the costs of this to begin with. He beat me up almost to death say, cost of NHS and ambulance services, then there are police times and arrests. Now then you have court costs along with transportation of a prisoner from and too a cell. Convicted of attempted murder now is a burden on the tax payer whilst behind bar and contributing nothing to society but because of EU bureaucratic feels he is entitled to kids, costs of appeal and raising appeal to be footed by tax payer. costs of a panel or individual to make judgement. say the individual loses the first case but then wins the second he now produces a life that he cannot access without supervised visits, more money to the tax payer, this would go on for say 10-15 years. The mother raising the child would be entitled to support due to the circumstances of all this with him in jail, his right to create life etc. Now lets look at the victim (me in this case). Because of the brutal nature of my beating i cannot produce children but as i have a job and have a clean record told i must cough up the full amount of IVF treatment which i cannot afford thus meaning i have lost my rights of a child and the convicted has gained more by beating me up than i have. Those in jail have lost or surrendered their rights in society thats why they are in jail, time for the common people to take a stand.

celtchicky
30-Dec-12, 13:56
A very good question.
Surely the lives that already exist ought to be treated first before new life is created? With so many patients being refused different types of drugs due purely to the expense then maybe it is time to put all NHS funded IVF on hold?

i suppose you are lucky enough to have your own children then???

im not sure which way i stand on the original post, i presume there is alot of follow-ups following their release from prison?

however, the debate about "normal" people having IVF on NHS will go on forever......unfortunately i am one of those woman in the position of not being able to have children and IVF is my only option (not sure about adoption as it all seems too complicated). i have had previous treatments funded by the health board and now when i try again i have to pay over £4000. im completely grateful for the option of funding as at the time, we couldnt have afforded it. i feel that this should be funded but i also think it should NOT be a postcode lottery and all of the county should be receiving the same.

M Swanson
30-Dec-12, 15:31
Lets say something happened to me on the way home from a night out, i was beaten almost to death, i manage to pull through and the convicted gets jailed for 20 years. In that 20 years in jail he gets broody and thinks he wants some kids but cant have any because of his infertility. So he decides takes it to a panel where he feels he has the rights for kids but due to infertility he feels he has the same rights as a couple out in the world trying for kids who are law abiding citizens. So lets look at the costs of this to begin with. He beat me up almost to death say, cost of NHS and ambulance services, then there are police times and arrests. Now then you have court costs along with transportation of a prisoner from and too a cell. Convicted of attempted murder now is a burden on the tax payer whilst behind bar and contributing nothing to society but because of EU bureaucratic feels he is entitled to kids, costs of appeal and raising appeal to be footed by tax payer. costs of a panel or individual to make judgement. say the individual loses the first case but then wins the second he now produces a life that he cannot access without supervised visits, more money to the tax payer, this would go on for say 10-15 years. The mother raising the child would be entitled to support due to the circumstances of all this with him in jail, his right to create life etc. Now lets look at the victim (me in this case). Because of the brutal nature of my beating i cannot produce children but as i have a job and have a clean record told i must cough up the full amount of IVF treatment which i cannot afford thus meaning i have lost my rights of a child and the convicted has gained more by beating me up than i have. Those in jail have lost or surrendered their rights in society thats why they are in jail, time for the common people to take a stand.

A briliant post, thanks Feda. Repped.

M Swanson
30-Dec-12, 15:43
however, the debate about "normal" people having IVF on NHS will go on forever......unfortunately i am one of those woman in the position of not being able to have children and IVF is my only option (not sure about adoption as it all seems too complicated). i have had previous treatments funded by the health board and now when i try again i have to pay over £4000. im completely grateful for the option of funding as at the time, we couldnt have afforded it. i feel that this should be funded but i also think it should NOT be a postcode lottery and all of the county should be receiving the same.

I think it's such a pity, that a couple who would love a child and would make wonderful parents, find it so difficult to conceive. Two friends of mine tried IVF three times on the NHS and once privately without any success. So they finally opted to try again in Spain. I know expenses have to be factored in, but they still managed to reduce the cost by £1000. This time they were successful and their beautiful little girl is now 4 years old. They had nothing but praise for the hospital and benefited from English speaking staff. I'm not sure why they thought the last attempt was successful, but I think it had something to do with Spain, unlike Britain, not restricting the number of embryos that can be implanted. They've now relocated to Australia and all are thriving. I wish you all the luck in the world.

Ballymore
30-Dec-12, 17:41
IVF should be offered for free to those that cannot concieve naturally whatever the reason. Prisoners should not - feda16's input is an excellent example. But we can also discuss the other aspect of pregnancy - those that have baby after baby and cannot look after them, or those that abort several times as they don't want to use contraception. Can we sterilise or give "the pill" to those women?
Whichever way we look at it there will always be unfairness in this world but it is sad when you know that many going through IVF (and the torture of each failure) would make much better parents than many of those who seem to get pregnant "just like that". Adoption should too be made less complicted - there are many children out there looking for parents.

Rheghead
30-Dec-12, 17:59
Shouldn't be free IVF treatment for anybody at all! If we are trying to persuade/force condoms on the third world to reduce their populations, because the world is perceived as overloaded with people.....is it only me who thinks it is much more than hypocritical for the Western taxpayer to be funding an increase in our populations?

Are you being serious or just having a laugh?

Oddquine
30-Dec-12, 22:33
Are you being serious or just having a laugh?

Why would you think I'm not being serious? Which part of If we are trying to persuade/force condoms on the third world to reduce their populations, because the world is perceived as overloaded with people.....is it only me who thinks it is much more than hypocritical for the Western taxpayer to be funding an increase in our populations? would indicate that?

Apart from that, there is stuff you get on the NHS which has nothing to do with health..not really! The reason the NHS is so expensive is partly because of the top-heavy number of overpaid suits running it....and partly because every time something is invented/discovered which vaguely fits into a "health" category...nobody ever says "Do we really need it" "Can we afford it?" "Haven't we managed fine so far without it"..they just say "We want it!" and it gets added into the unfortunately not bottomless pit which is our welfare system. And then choices have to be made as to the use of finite resources...currently accomplished as a post-code lottery.

There are a lot of things I don't think the NHS (or the Welfare System) should be funding at all...things which have little to do with health/welfare and more to do with an ever growing perception of entitlement to anything and everything available, just because it is available, not because it is necessary.... and a lot of things I think they should be funding in every area, and don't, because of lack of money...and I'm sorry if it offends anybody...but I'd rather be spending the amount IVF treatment costs on, say, an insulin pump to protect a child already born and who has type 1 diabetes through no fault of their own. If you are only going to look at it on health cost grounds.....the insulin pump would, in the long run, because it would improve glucose control and reduce the risks of complications, cost the NHS less than adding yet another person to the population will.

I will now retreat behind my couch to protect myself......because I have a feeling that, on this forum, I will not have said anything which warrants a discussion...but will produce vituperation and personal insults (as most of my posts tend to do.)

Rheghead
30-Dec-12, 22:54
Why would you think I'm not being serious? Which part of If we are trying to persuade/force condoms on the third world to reduce their populations, because the world is perceived as overloaded with people.....is it only me who thinks it is much more than hypocritical for the Western taxpayer to be funding an increase in our populations? would indicate that?

But in your second post, you said...


but I'd rather be spending the amount IVF treatment costs on, say, an insulin pump to protect a child already born and who has type 1 diabetes through no fault of their own. If you are only going to look at it on health cost grounds.....the insulin pump would, in the long run, because it would improve glucose control and reduce the risks of complications, cost the NHS less than adding yet another person to the population will.

I have a problem with the part that you think that the children born through IVF are seriously adding to overloading populations. Just how many test tube kids do you think have been born since 1979 compared to the population increase since then? :eek:

You didn't mention costs at all in your first post. But I would have thought that an extra taxpayer in the world would pay for themselves so they would be cost-neutral.

Your logic doesn't add up on this one. If I really thought that banning free IVF treatment would be an answer to Global sustainability and the financial health of the NHS then I would be with you all the way but I just see the rantings of someone who is dissatified with anyone getting summat for nowt and a deeper prejudice against childless couples.

secrets in symmetry
30-Dec-12, 23:09
Great post Rheghead. The culture of overt selfishness proposed by some is a disgrace to humanity.

celtchicky
31-Dec-12, 00:04
here here Rheghead. great post!

Dadie
31-Dec-12, 00:16
As long as they are expected to gain/obtain the criteria and can undergo the treatment without breaching their jail terms.....why not?
The jail terms will curtail their hospital visits if still incarcenated...and should be adhered to.
But if free after sentence has been carried out the slate should be wiped clean!...as far as it can be...(depending on what convicted for ..depends on whether they get child contact)
Then they should expect to jump through the same hoops and checks as everyone else in the same boat and their curcumstances shouldnt help or hinder them.
But no preferental treatment ........as its blinking hard enough to get IVF as it is!

Alrock
31-Dec-12, 00:20
.......
If I really thought that banning free IVF treatment would be an answer to Global sustainability and the financial health of the NHS then I would be with you all the way.....

If I really thought that building more windfarms would be an answer to Global warming and the planetry health of the Earth then I would be with you all the way....

You can use that sentence to dismiss anything that isn't actually gonna make much difference in the great scheme of things but is, never the less the right thing to do, controversial as it might be.

Oddquine
31-Dec-12, 00:24
But in your second post, you said...



I have a problem with the part that you think that the children born through IVF are seriously adding to overloading populations. Just how many test tube kids do you think have been born since 1979 compared to the population increase since then? :eek:

You didn't mention costs at all in your first post. But I would have thought that an extra taxpayer in the world would pay for themselves so they would be cost-neutral.

Your logic doesn't add up on this one. If I really thought that banning free IVF treatment would be an answer to Global sustainability and the financial health of the NHS then I would be with you all the way but I just see the rantings of someone who is dissatified with anyone getting summat for nowt and a deeper prejudice against childless couples.

I'm not really looking at it via your rose coloured glasses of global sustainability which also promotes windmill proliferation...sorry about that!

I am simply looking at the rank hypocrisy of it...a hypocrisy which pretty much says that in the West, our kids will mostly live, while in your third world country your kids will mostly die! We understand why you would want to have as many as you can because there is a damn good chance that few of them will live out of childhood and your culture kinda needs kids to look after you in your old age....but hey. if you are lucky enough to have all you produce living past childhood, that is putting a strain on the world re population which is not acceptable to us...so here's a condom, this is how to use it...so bliddy well use it. In the meantime, we will be helping people in our country who are unable to have children...for whatever reason... to have them....not because we are going to need them to look after us when we are old, at about 40, as you likely will, but because we have the science to do it...and people want it because we have the science to do it! In fact our state system will look after us in old age, so we only really need children to work and produce the taxes to pay for our state system going forward, and they don't have to be our own to do that. So sorry you don't have a state system....but that isn't our problem.....however we really don't think you should be producing children the world can't maintain....it's different for us..we are the West and not third world and important in our own minds.....so if we run short of resources to maintain our population, we can probably screw you in some way to get yours.

How cost neutral would it be if they never work, claim benefits and are a long-term cost to the NHS?

Obliging people who think they are going to want IVF treatment at some stage pay for it themselves via private health insurance is not "being against it" as a concept..it is however, accepting that it is not an imperative to maintaining health, life and limb. I could, but won't, add a fair bit more we shouldn't be paying for, imo. If we are in a situation re the welfare state, which we are, regarding insupportable long term costs, which will become even less supportable as our population ages, we are going to have to make hard choices....and I'm inclined to think, in the NHS, sacking suits who cost a lot and accomplish little, mainly because they cost so much of the health budget, reducing what is then available for people at the point of need (note.not want..need), is the first option...but if that doesn't do it...then I can see no justification for continuing to fund non-essential elective procedures.

M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 01:00
Pay no heed to the bruisers OQ. I don't! :)

I don't agree with you about not making IVF available, on the NHS, to all who need it. I think taxpayers pay enough into the pot to cover this expense and the cost of providing insulin to everyone who needs it, should be easily affordable. I do agree though, that we will be forced into making hard choices. Too much of the budget is spent on administrative costs, but there's also many other areas that need to be tackled. Theft of essential hospital equipment. like scanners, computers and heart monitoring machines, etc., cost us millions every year. In Scotland the sum was £1.3M last year, but in real terms that becomes £2.6M because replacements have to be purchased. Health tourism was estimated to cost Britain over £40M last year. And it costs over £1 billion a year to treat immigrants and asylum seekers. In addition, translation services swallowed another £32M, over the last two years, which would pay the wages for 1700 nurses. That's just three areas of huge expenditure. If everyone's happy with those figures, then fine! If not, then something needs to be done before the NHS implodes!

changilass
31-Dec-12, 01:56
Infertility is a medical problem, very few people needing this help is through any fault of their own.

I am assuming you either did not want kids, or that you had no problem conceiving, had you had a problem you would know why this is available on the NHS.

Are we to stop procreating in this country just to balance out the third world overload, as you put it?

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 11:24
I am simply looking at the rank hypocrisy of it...a hypocrisy which pretty much says that [I]in the West, our kids will mostly live, while in your third world country your kids will mostly die!

I agree that there is a disparity between the wealth of the west and that of the third world, I'd be the first to say that is unjust, so why do want to lay the blame for it into the hands of childless couples?

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 11:26
If I really thought that building more windfarms would be an answer to Global warming and the planetry health of the Earth then I would be with you all the way....

You can use that sentence to dismiss anything that isn't actually gonna make much difference in the great scheme of things but is, never the less the right thing to do, controversial as it might be.

Nobody is saying that wind farms are the answer to Global warming and the planetry health of the Earth, that argument is a house of cards which is created by the anti-wind lobby.

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 13:07
Do you think it's right that the European Court of Rights is to force us to give state-funded IVF, to convicted murderers, rapists, etc? Thanks to tax-funded Legal Aid, (£20,000), one killer has already won the right to treatment and received £18,000 damages in the process. Already four more murderers and a drug dealer are demanding the same rights and the Government may be "powerless to refuse." Yet 60% of 45K women who underwent fertility treatment last year, were forced to pay for it.

And a few of you wonder why our NHS is buckling under the weight of countless examples such as this? Will this 'positive discrimination;' edicts from the ECHR and madness ever end? Thank you Blair! Grrrrr!

I agree that ex-convicts should be allowed to have free IVF treatment. I can't see any point in punishing them further than their sentence.

Oddquine
31-Dec-12, 14:15
I agree that there is a disparity between the wealth of the west and that of the third world, I'd be the first to say that is unjust, so why do want to lay the blame for it into the hands of childless couples?

I'm not..what makes you think I am?

If the NHS had ample funding to do what the NHS was set up to do....keep the people already alive in decent health and treat them adequately when they become ill, I would have no quibble with it using funds surplus to requirements in offering expensive fertility treatment, expensive cosmetic surgery etc....or family planning, come to that...as elective procedures.

However, when it costs around £4000 for a cycle of IVF treatment, (and around 12000 people a year are undergoing fertility treatment in the UK, treatment which works on average around 30% of the time), and the same amount monthly for a drug to treat multiple myeloma to give somebody an extra three years or so of life, or half that amount monthly to treat kidney cancer with the new drugs to prolong life..and those procedures are not considered "cost-effective"....how come IVF is...and....which option is actually healthcare?

If we are going to have to ration healthcare, then the obvious place to start rationing is with those procedures which are not essential to maintaining life already here. I reiterate, I am not against IVF or any elective procedures per se......but I do not think they are a sensible, or appropriate, use of scarce and finite resources at this time. We seem to spend our time redefining the purpose of the NHS to include the provision of all treatments (bar the ones not deemed cost-effective, of course), rather than just those that are clinically necessary..and we can't afford to do that......in fact haven't been able to afford to for years.

cptdodger
31-Dec-12, 14:19
I'm not..what makes you think I am?

If the NHS had ample funding to do what the NHS was set up to do....keep the people already alive in decent health and treat them adequately when they become ill, I would have no quibble with it using funds surplus to requirements in offering expensive fertility treatment, expensive cosmetic surgery etc....or family planning, come to that...as elective procedures.

However, when it costs around £4000 for a cycle of IVF treatment, (and around 12000 people a year are undergoing fertility treatment in the UK, treatment which works on average around 30% of the time), and the same amount monthly for a drug to treat multiple myeloma to give somebody an extra three years or so of life, or half that amount monthly to treat kidney cancer with the new drugs to prolong life..and those procedures are not considered "cost-effective"....how come IVF is...and....which option is actually healthcare?

If we are going to have to ration healthcare, then the obvious place to start rationing is with those procedures which are not essential to maintaining life already here. I reiterate, I am not against IVF or any elective procedures per se......but I do not think they are a sensible, or appropriate, use of scarce and finite resources at this time. We seem to spend our time redefining the purpose of the NHS to include the provision of all treatments (bar the ones not deemed cost-effective, of course), rather than just those that are clinically necessary..and we can't afford to do that......in fact haven't been able to afford to for years.

Do you have children ?

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 14:24
I'm not..what makes you think I am?

You said
is it only me who thinks it is much more than hypocritical for the Western taxpayer to be funding an increase in our populations?

You are obviously saying that free IVF treatment is causing environmental harm or even contributing to it by increasing population. But you can't even justify it logically. I've not heard that before. Just ask yourself what are the real causes of over population on this planet of ours and see how far up the list free IVF treatment comes as a possible cause. It isn't even there. So how do you come to that conclusion?

M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 14:52
Do you have children ?

What has that got to do with anything? :confused


I'm not..what makes you think I am?


If we are going to have to ration healthcare, then the obvious place to start rationing is with those procedures which are not essential to maintaining life already here. I reiterate, I am not against IVF or any elective procedures per se......but I do not think they are a sensible, or appropriate, use of scarce and finite resources at this time. We seem to spend our time redefining the purpose of the NHS to include the provision of all treatments (bar the ones not deemed cost-effective, of course), rather than just those that are clinically necessary..and we can't afford to do that......in fact haven't been able to afford to for years.

I still don't think IVF treatment should be denied anyone, but I do agree with you on the rest of this paragraph. Isn't the bottom line, that a fortune is pumped into the NHS; more than enough to cover the cost of treatment at the point of need, for all, if it's used fairly and the health of our people is prioritised? Nobody has commented on my previous post, which highlighted savings of over £1 Billion, which could and I believe should be made. There are far too many folks tapping into the resources, who have never, and in some cases, will never, contribute to the pot. My own local hospital is in a deep financial crisis and unless new measures are introduced, that won't change. It's not that we don't have enough money to throw at the NHS. We do and are! Let's take care of our own and donate any surplus willingly, to others, I say!

M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 15:01
I agree that ex-convicts should be allowed to have free IVF treatment. I can't see any point in punishing them further than their sentence.

Yes, I don't see there's any alternative to that, Rheg. 'Though I'm compelled to add, that in the case cited, I believe 15 years for beating a human being to death, is far too lenient. I don't know if a tariff was set, but if it wasn't that means he'll be walking the streets in about 7 years. If I had my way, he would be old and grey before being released and thinking more about an afternoon nap than making a baby. Maybe that's not the way it works with men. I shut the stable door years ago! ;)

Oddquine
31-Dec-12, 15:06
Do you have children ?

I do......and if I didn't I'd not have made any effort to change that fact of life...if it had been possible then. To be fair, I probably wouldn't have adopted or fostered either....I'd just have lived my life without children.

cptdodger
31-Dec-12, 15:26
I do......and if I didn't I'd not have made any effort to change that fact of life...if it had been possible then. To be fair, I probably wouldn't have adopted or fostered either....I'd just have lived my life without children.

So easy to say when you have children. Great if your partner felt the same way.

Southern-Gal
31-Dec-12, 16:54
What about the welfare of a child born to convicts? Is it fair to wish being born to criminal parents onto an innocent baby? The would be babys rights should be more important than those of a convict. Life is hard enough without being born into criminal hands. What chance do they have?

M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 17:30
What about the welfare of a child born to convicts? Is it fair to wish being born to criminal parents onto an innocent baby? The would be babys rights should be more important than those of a convict. Life is hard enough without being born into criminal hands. What chance do they have?

Yes and how awful, when the child becomes older, for it to have to admit that it was conceived by a murderer, by artificial means, because he chose to take the life of another man. Often the child is the last consideration in issues such as this, when their interests should be paramount. There's always the possibility that incarcerated convicts may decide to have more than one child whilst serving their time and let's face it, those in power have decided that it's his human rights to and our obligation to pick up the bill. Where's the morality? Madness!

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 18:08
What chance do they have?

Yeah, what chance do ex-convicts have of ever being accepted back into society if they feel the world is contantly against them. I think we will have failed them if we never give them a chance.

M Swanson
31-Dec-12, 18:48
Yeah, what chance do ex-convicts have of ever being accepted back into society if they feel the world is contantly against them. I think we will have failed them if we never give them a chance.

You're very cavalier with the lives of children and the burdened taxpayer, Rheg! Left to me, murderers wouldn't have a problem with being accepted back into society. I wonder if you'd feel the same way, if one of the victim's was your son, or daughter? Can you imagine running over their last moments on this earth for the rest of your life? Life should mean life, imo! Perhaps those who don't agree should petition to have them moved in next door! Sorted! ;)

cptdodger
31-Dec-12, 19:41
"Life should mean life, imo!" Okay, and where do you intend keeping them all ? Prisons are overcrowded as it is, so would you use "the burdened taxpayer's" money to build new prisons?

"Perhaps those who don't agree should petition to have them moved in next door! Sorted!" That would be next door to the people that actually make the laws that state how long a murderer should serve. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, and to be honest, how do you know who you are living next door to? It could indeed be a convicted murderer, they are hardly going to boast about their past.

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 19:50
You're very cavalier with the lives of children and the burdened taxpayer, Rheg! Left to me, murderers wouldn't have a problem with being accepted back into society. I wonder if you'd feel the same way, if one of the victim's was your son, or daughter? Can you imagine running over their last moments on this earth for the rest of your life? Life should mean life, imo! Perhaps those who don't agree should petition to have them moved in next door! Sorted! ;)

Cavalier?

A man murders a child molester who lives next door and so you think their child is at risk if he ever gets out?

Oddquine
31-Dec-12, 21:54
So easy to say when you have children. Great if your partner felt the same way.

I'm whispering this because I wouldn't want my kids to hear.......I decided when I was in my teenage years that I didn't want children (or a husband, come to that), but a career..... but I was daft (you can guess how) and got the husband and the first of my offspring by the time I had just turned 19.....and never got the career, though I did get a job after both of them had started school.

Out of interest what would my having children or not having children have to do with my partner..even in those days? Always thought if he was going to choose to have kids, he could produce the ones he wanted....and I'd produce the ones I felt like producing!

Southern-Gal
31-Dec-12, 22:13
Bring back hanging for murderers and other really violent criminals and there would be no reason to have this debate never mind argue if there is enough room for them all and enough money to keep them entertained.

cptdodger
31-Dec-12, 22:18
[QUOTE=Oddquine;997528]I'm whispering this because I wouldn't want my kids to hear.......I decided when I was in my teenage years that I didn't want children (or a husband, come to that), but a career..... but I was daft (you can guess how) and got the husband and the first of my offspring by the time I had just turned 19.....and never got the career, though I did get a job after both of them had started school.

It's entirely up to you whether you tell your kids you did'nt want them, but I certainly would not have put that in print.

Out of interest what would my having children or not having children have to do with my partner..even in those days? Always thought if he was going to choose to have kids, he could produce the ones he wanted....and I'd produce the ones I felt like producing!

Is that a serious question ? You did'nt want kids so you would be quite happy for your husband (in your case) to go and father them with someone else - really?

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 22:21
Bring back hanging for murderers and other really violent criminals and there would be no reason to have this debate never mind argue if there is enough room for them all and enough money to keep them entertained.

But bringing back the death penalty is not an option, it never will be again so there is no point in harping on about it and perhaps the debate could shift to something more constructive narrative rather than to vent a belly ache?

Oddquine
31-Dec-12, 22:22
You said

You are obviously saying that free IVF treatment is causing environmental harm or even contributing to it by increasing population. But you can't even justify it logically. I've not heard that before. Just ask yourself what are the real causes of over population on this planet of ours and see how far up the list free IVF treatment comes as a possible cause. It isn't even there. So how do you come to that conclusion?

Might be obvious to you........but it isn't obvious to me. I didn't at any stage say I thought free IVF treatment is causing environmental harm or even contributing to it by increasing population.......so kindly point me at the parts of my post you interpret as that........I simply said that we in the West were hypocritical in the extreme in trying to encourage third world countries to limit their populations...while we are paying out to increase ours. Nothing at all to do with environmental considerations.....more to do withthe usual Western double standards.

My take on your environmental obsession.....windmills are a waste of finite sources and do little in the scheme of things to cut carbon emissions (even if I thought that global warming is as great a problem as some appear to think....windmills are absolutely not the answer). The levels of population are not the problem...the levels of food production needed to feed the third world and our rampantly wasteful Western society is...we aren't trying to get those in the third world to cut their population because the Earth couldn't sustain the population (though it might be easier if we were all vegetarian) but because a growing population outside the West will mean that the more of them who have to eat, the less we will get to eat!

That clear enough for you?

Rheghead
31-Dec-12, 22:24
That clear enough for you?

No you are just making a dog's dinner of a backtrack. You might as well admit it that free IVF has absolutely nothing to do with rising populations and we would have more respect for you.

Southern-Gal
31-Dec-12, 23:15
With all the studies and research showing how children do in any given situation, which ones get the best start in life and which ones end up being the losers in life both in emotional terms and materially then why would anyone want to go to all the trauma of IVF to have a child with a convicted murderer? Would anyone want to think they were the product and combination of genes of a murderer father and a woman who only considers herself good enough to have a child with a murderer in prison through a clinical procedure rather than in a loving relationship with a good man? With the best will in the world and all the services and finances social services could throw its way the child would be a failure waiting to happen. And should the tax payer be expected to foot the bill of perpetuating criminal genes for another generation to carry on and fill up the jails in years to come? Because the genes will always out.

_Ju_
31-Dec-12, 23:50
Left to me, murderers wouldn't have a problem with being accepted back into society. I wonder if you'd feel the same way, if one of the victim's was your son, or daughter? Can you imagine running over their last moments on this earth for the rest of your life? Life should mean life, imo! ;)
How would you feel if it were your son or daughter were the victim of a miscarriage of justice? It is not unheard of. And there is no regress from the death penalty. Justice is not black and white. Justice is not perfect or blind. Justice varies according to you bank account and marketability. It is imperfect and as such no absolute judgements should ever be made, either about life and death, the right vote or even, dare I say, to reproduce. In this country once your sentence is spent, you have paid your societal debt. If this is not allowed to happen then there can be no hope for these people, and with no hope why make an effort?

squidge
31-Dec-12, 23:51
The Genes will always out??????Honestly i despair sometimes.

Do you REALLY believe that a child is born bad??

Southern-Gal
01-Jan-13, 10:49
Lots of research has proven that is is down to 50% nature and 50% nurture so sadly some of us start off with less favourable odds than others.
And most people will surely agree it is hard or impossible to nurture a baby from behind bars or without a capable and well adjusted spouse?
Sometimes it is kinder to say no in the long run.

squidge
01-Jan-13, 11:13
The less favourable odds are likely to be the people who write you off because of who your parents are or what they did before you have even taken a breath. Many people commit crimes and go on to lead valuable lives. Not as many as it should be but thats as much a problem with our system as with the person. As for a capable and well adjusted spouse.... What constitutes a capable and well adjusted anybody.... Not just a spouse. Many children grow up in single parent households and do perfectly well. I dont believe prisoners should take part in IVF but not because they are going to pass on genes which will turn their child into a criminal but because they are being punished. Might be interesting for you to tell us who you WOULD allow to have children Southern-Gal

Oddquine
02-Jan-13, 02:53
I'm whispering this because I wouldn't want my kids to hear.......I decided when I was in my teenage years that I didn't want children (or a husband, come to that), but a career..... but I was daft (you can guess how) and got the husband and the first of my offspring by the time I had just turned 19.....and never got the career, though I did get a job after both of them had started school.

It's entirely up to you whether you tell your kids you did'nt want them, but I certainly would not have put that in print.




Out of interest what would my having children or not having children have to do with my partner..even in those days? Always thought if he was going to choose to have kids, he could produce the ones he wanted....and I'd produce the ones I felt like producing!

Is that a serious question ? You did'nt want kids so you would be quite happy for your husband (in your case) to go and father them with someone else - really?

Jesus wept...do you think I'd have put it in print if they were not well aware of the fact that my marriage was the result of an unplanned pregnancy (they are bright enough to count)..or that marriage and kids weren't in my plans for my future. That's not the same as saying I didn't want them..if I didn't want them, I'd not have had the second at all, because I'd not have married, having aborted the first! Sheesh! :roll: However...that is not saying I'd not have been just as happy if I'd never had them...which is the point I was making, and you appear to have missed.

Why would you assume I meant he could go out and have them with someone else, when I said he could produce the ones he wanted...I meant he could have had a go at producing them himself,...as in there would never have been a population explosion if the parents had to carry and produce the offspring alternately.....because while each family might have had two kids, if the female had the first one, there might well be families with three kids..but darn few with four......and I'd hazard a guess not many with 6, 8 or 10 kids. :D

cptdodger
02-Jan-13, 14:06
Jesus wept...do you think I'd have put it in print if they were not well aware of the fact that my marriage was the result of an unplanned pregnancy (they are bright enough to count)..or that marriage and kids weren't in my plans for my future. That's not the same as saying I didn't want them..if I didn't want them, I'd not have had the second at all, because I'd not have married, having aborted the first! Sheesh! :roll: However...that is not saying I'd not have been just as happy if I'd never had them...which is the point I was making, and you appear to have missed.

Why would you assume I meant he could go out and have them with someone else, when I said he could produce the ones he wanted...I meant he could have had a go at producing them himself,...as in there would never have been a population explosion if the parents had to carry and produce the offspring alternately.....because while each family might have had two kids, if the female had the first one, there might well be families with three kids..but darn few with four......and I'd hazard a guess not many with 6, 8 or 10 kids. :D

I originally asked you if you had children. It was then your choice to use sarcasm when replying to me. As it was also your choice to use contraception - or not. When I asked you the question it was in reference to IVF. The point you appear to have missed is - you had these choices to make - whether you carried on with the unplanned pregnancy - or not. Whether you had more children - or not. There are a vast amount of people who would love to have the choices you had.

M Swanson
02-Jan-13, 14:48
Just to try and pull the thread back on track, it's good to see that the Scottish government are pumping more money into IVF treatment. Good for them. It's money well-spent, imo. :cool:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19686064

beth210486
03-Jan-13, 09:52
To those of you who don't think ivf should be paid for by Nhs are probably people who've been blessed with being able to have children naturally without a problem. For those like myself who aren't so fortunate then ivf is the only option we have to have children. For myself i was put on a 3 year waiting list which would only be made longer if murderers etc were allowed to have it too. Infertility is an illness though and so should be treated on Nhs same as obese people, drug and drink addicts get treated on Nhs. We ended up paying privately as for me the wait was too long, we've been blessed and I'm currently writing this whilst feeding my 13 week old twins but why should people who cant afford 6k to self fund not be allowed a chance of the same blessing.

M Swanson
03-Jan-13, 10:02
What a lovely read to find when arriving on the Org, Beth. Congratulations on the safe arrival of your twins. I hope they bring you much joy and it's nothing more than you deserve. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. Well said.