News RSS Feed


Hundreds of couples denied IVF treatment on NHS

12:14pm Tuesday 24th April 2007

comment Comments (35)   Have your say »


HEARTBREAK is hitting hundreds of North Yorkshire couples who are being denied IVF treatment to help them have babies.

The waiting list for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) - the last desperate hope for many childless couples - has now been suspended in the county since January.

New figures obtained by The Press from the cash-strapped North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust (PCT) reveal that there are currently about 300 women waiting on the list - not knowing when they will be given the treatment they long for.

The women who are waiting to be given the treatment range in age from 21 to 39 - the latter being the cut-off age for women being offered IVF on the NHS, according to national guidelines.

Dr Brian McGregor, a York GP and secretary of the York Local Medical Committee, said: "This is an ongoing tragedy for each and every one of these women, many of whom have struggled for years to try and conceive, and are well aware their personal chances of success are reduced significantly with increasing age - many will be aware that even if they reach the age for treatment (approaching 40), success rates are significantly lower than attempting IVF at a younger age."

The cash-strapped PCT first suspended IVF treatment at the beginning of this year as part of a package of short-term measures to save £10million.

In April, many of the suspended treatments became available again - but IVF still continued to be unavailable save for "exceptional cases".

Women can still be given initial investigations for infertility, but they must go on the waiting list for the treatment itself.

Dr John Crompton, chairman of the North Yorkshire Local Medical Committee, said the body was trying to negotiate with the PCT on the issue. He said: "We really don't find it acceptable that in North Yorkshire we're in a position that our patients are being disadvantaged in that they don't have access to IVF routinely as per NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) guidelines. We realise that the PCT have a very difficult job to do to try to balance their books. But it doesn't fit in when you've got national guidance and patients who should have access to these services."

A spokesman for North Yorkshire and York PCT said: "The PCT has decided to continue with its restriction of IVF treatment, however cases are still being considered for patients with an exceptional need. These cases are being considered on an individual basis considering the personal circumstances of each patient. We obviously recognise the often distressing circumstances around the need for IVF treatment, which is why we have a system in place to ensure that those most in need can still access the treatment."


Treatments were suspended to save cash

The Primary Care Trust (PCT) suspended a wide range of medical treatments in January to save cash.

The organisation put in place a group of medics called the Prior Approval Panel for exceptional cases to vet patients sent by their GPs for any of the suspended treatments. GPs were discouraged from referring patients for these procedures, but could send those they felt to be urgent cases to the panel.

The most recent figures obtained by The Press revealed that about half of the patients sent to the panel were granted the treatments. Now many of the treatments which were originally suspended have become available again - but the prior approval system is still in place for some procedures.

GPs who feel their patients urgently need IVF are being asked to send their cases to the PCT in the same way as the prior approval system - with only "exceptional cases" given the procedure.

We handed in a petition signed by 2,346 readers protesting at the system. More people have since signed our petition forms and sent them in to our Walmgate offices.


Guidelines for provision of treatment

THE provision of IVF treatment is subject to guidelines issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

These recommend that women who fulfil certain criteria should be offered up to three cycles of IVF on the NHS.

The guidelines say women should be between 23 and 39 years old when they are treated, and one or both members of a couple should have been diagnosed with a fertility problem. Women can also be offered the treatment if a couple has suffered from infertility for at least three years.

In 2004, the then health secretary Dr John Reid asked PCTs to make sure they offered at least one cycle of IVF to women by April 2005.


Your Say YourYork Press

J, York says...
1:01pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Having kids is a life style choice, Not having them is not a life threatening illness. Lets go one step further and have a panel to approve breeding for everybody and if you aren't deemed fit you don't get a license.

MD, YORK says...
1:11pm Tue 24 Apr 07

J wrote:
Having kids is a life style choice, Not having them is not a life
threatening illness. Lets go one step further and have a panel to
approve breeding for everybody and if you aren't deemed fit you don't
get a license.
Imbecile

fred, says...
1:15pm Tue 24 Apr 07

There is no right to be able to have kids. I'd sooner my taxes went towards treating illnesses.

MP, York says...
1:15pm Tue 24 Apr 07

I have to agree with MD. J you sound like a Kn0b

J, York says...
1:36pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Imbecile? Would you like to clarify that with a justification of why you think that that having kids is more important than say, an ex soldier having to go blind before he gets treatment or drugs for the treatment of breast cancer get rationed, whilst spending 10 million on something none fatal, how about everyone that wants breast implants gets free treatment or cosmetic teeth whitening for free on the nhs?

The fact is the NHS is bankrupt and health care is going to be rationed.

hobbit, work says...
1:41pm Tue 24 Apr 07

I think J was trying to make was possibly that do the people on the IVF lift go through such rigorous checks as those who wish to adopt?

MP, YORK says...
1:45pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Nobody said having children was more important then an ex soldiers treatment/drugs. People who are infertile should have the option to try for IVF if they want the chance to have a child. Have you got kids???

MP, YORK says...
1:45pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Nobody said having children was more important then an ex soldiers treatment/drugs. People who are infertile should have the option to try for IVF if they want the chance to have a child. Have you got kids???

MP, YORK says...
1:45pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Nobody said having children was more important then an ex soldiers treatment/drugs. People who are infertile should have the option to try for IVF if they want the chance to have a child. Have you got kids???

MP, YORK says...
1:47pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Sorry folks for posting 3 times, did only press post comment once. Honest.

hobbit, work says...
1:47pm Tue 24 Apr 07

No I dont, I am unable to have my own children but rather than go through IVF I am in the process of adopting rather than draining NHS reasources when there are hundreds of children who need love and a home

Emma, york says...
1:49pm Tue 24 Apr 07

why dont people who want kids but cant have them adopt anyway? surely its much better to give an unwanted child a loving home than to wait years to have your own? i dont think IVF should be given on NHs if people really want their own child then they should fund it themselves

bin thier done it, york says...
1:50pm Tue 24 Apr 07

agreed if u want it pay for it i did twice it isnt cheep

MP, YORK says...
1:51pm Tue 24 Apr 07

And thats your choice hobbit, so good luck to you. Not all people want to adopt, some do want a child of their own. Not saying you will treat your adopted child any differenly.

hobbit, work says...
1:53pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Agreeably IVF is not cheap but I kind of think thats the point, its not a cheap proceedure and it is not a cure for soemthing life threatening so surely it should be something that is paid for by the individuals rather than the tax payers?
And again with adoption although believe me its a lengthy process is a alternative that would benefit a child who already exists!!!

Frankie, work says...
1:53pm Tue 24 Apr 07

I agree with J. Why should the NHS fund IVF? I feel sorry for those unable to have children, especially when many unsuitable parents can have them naturally but still do not believe this is money well spent.

A panel to approve breeding may have come out as a harsh comment, but something like that may have stopped that outrage of goading the toddlers into fighting each other!

MD's and MP's remarks are not exactly what you would call constructive debate.

Emma, york says...
1:53pm Tue 24 Apr 07

well done 'bin thier done it' i have a lot of respect for you for funding it yourself,I'm sure it was an expensive process and I think that just adds to the argument that it shouldnt be performed on the NHS

hobbit, work says...
1:55pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Im not condeming IVF, far from it, I think its great that we can do that nowadays, Im just saying there are alternatives

Emma, york says...
1:57pm Tue 24 Apr 07

hobbit wrote:
Im not condeming IVF, far from it, I think its great that we can do that nowadays, Im just saying there are alternatives
I agree

Devil's advocate, Heworth says...
2:01pm Tue 24 Apr 07

People in couples, who can't conceive naturally, might not be able to do so as a result of reasons pertaining to their genetic make up.

If they were allowed to conceive offspring by IVF, might it not be the case that they are perpetuating defective genes resulting in the reduction in fertility of society as a whole?

(Ref: Darwin)




J, York says...
2:03pm Tue 24 Apr 07

It was a harsh comment and has produced some useful debate as well as the usual name calling that can be expected on here. The fact is I don't see having children as a right. I also dislike what I see in terms of what is happening to the demographic profile in this country, whereby the feckless, bone idle underclass of society are out-breeding, the hard working job holding members, whereby those that don't have children or cant have children are seeing an ever increasing lump of their salary deducted to support this under class and support life style treatments on the nhs.

If you want it that much then pay for it. If you cant afford it, then can you afford to bring up a child?

David, York says...
2:03pm Tue 24 Apr 07

I think that in the real world, with limited budgets, life threatening illnesses should be given priority over somebodys preference to have their own boilogical child rather than adopting. Just seems like common sense to me.

MP, YORK says...
2:08pm Tue 24 Apr 07

So J your saying only rich people should have children

Emma, says...
2:17pm Tue 24 Apr 07

MP wrote:
So J your saying only rich people should have children
only people who can afford to have children should have them i believe is what he's saying, and if you cannot afford to pay for the treatment then why not adopt? why should our taxes go towards this?

MP, YORK says...
2:25pm Tue 24 Apr 07

The only thing your all bothered about is your money, money, money and taxes taxes taxes.Selfish the lot of you.

Emma, york says...
2:29pm Tue 24 Apr 07

I find it far more selfish to expect the NHS to fund you 'wanting' your own baby when there are people who 'need' operations and treatment for life threatening problems

Hylda, York says...
2:30pm Tue 24 Apr 07

This is a very distressing situation for many couples. This financial situation is through mismanagment and we should not be debating blindness versus babies versus cancer treatment. My company's private health insurance, for which I am taxed, has paid for treatment for me but more importantly has paid my husband's radiotherapy bill. The treatment was the same as the NHS, he did not get it any quicker, although because it was private he couldn't use the ambulance car to get him to Cookridge. So, the bill so far of £25000 has not cost the PCT a bean and how many other people pay for their treatment? No I am not rich and in fact am paying twice. How would the PCT manage if everyone was using the NHS in the area....I dread to think. PS Can our £25000 go towards Alzeimers drugs.....no I thought not!

Devils Advocate, Heworth says...
2:32pm Tue 24 Apr 07

MP wrote:
So J your saying only rich people should have children
Devil's Advocate here again!

Animals in the wild (and YES! - we ARE animals - albeit highly developed ones) are only able to procreate their existence if they have adequate access to resources i.e. food & shelter. Even when they do procreate, they need continued access to be able to rear their young, otherwise they perish. Those individuals that are sufficiently skilled at doing this will not be able to contnue their genetic line. The stronger, more capable, survives.

Does this aspect of Mother Nature still exist in this, our "civilised" society?

Discuss.

hobbit, work says...
2:34pm Tue 24 Apr 07

MP wrote:
The only thing your all bothered about is your money, money, money and taxes taxes taxes.Selfish the lot of you.
No one is saying that, all anyone is saying is that if people need to have a biological child and this is the avenue they wish to persue they should have the means to pay for it themselves, afterall they are going to need the financial means to actually take care of the child once it is born?
As for taxes, id be happy to pay more if the services were worth it but as it is I pay my taxes and the seperatley pay for private healthcare

Priority, york says...
2:44pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Surely there should be a degree of priority over:
- Needs (cancer treatment)
- Wants (sight plight)
- Nice to have (Kids)

As someone posted above maybe mother nature is trying to tell you something, however hard it may be to digest. Priority must lie with the urgent life-threatening disease, then the debilitating loss of sight to the nice-to-have issue of children. I would question whether the people going for IVF would accept a heart transplant from a genetically grown specimen from a pig? (now theres a scenario....)

Michael Fleming, York says...
3:29pm Tue 24 Apr 07

This is a medical condition so should be treated as a medical condition, to say otherwise is ludicrous.

J, york says...
3:31pm Tue 24 Apr 07

MP wrote:
So J your saying only rich people should have children
Not quite. What I'm saying is only those that can afford to properly feed, cloth, protect and nurture their children should have them. Its survival of the fittest.

In the animal kingdom the survival of the species relies on an a number of factors and hand outs taken of every other creatures within that classification is not one of them.

It is well acknowledge that the earth currently has twice the amount of pests, sorry humans that it can healthily support.

MP you don't need your own biological child to survive any more than I need a Porsche. It suggest that it is you being selfish.

Frankie, york says...
3:42pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Michael Fleming wrote:
This is a medical condition so should be treated as a medical condition, to say otherwise is ludicrous.
But it is NOT a life threatening condition, or in my opinion an illness, unless you count the emotional difficulties some couples face in their want of having a biological child.


emma, says...
3:45pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Michael Fleming wrote:
This is a medical condition so should be treated as a medical condition, to say otherwise is ludicrous.
I dont think anyone disagrees that it is a medical condition, however i do not think it is an illness

Last man out, Somewhere helping the rich evade tax says...
3:51pm Tue 24 Apr 07

Glad to see some of the people who have posted on here came from era's where money was obviously in abundance. If their parents had the same selfish attitude as shown, there would be a lot less postings on this forum today.

Comments are closed on this article.




Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »