IVF for lesbians rather than cancer drugs, it's all gone mad

[oyster]

BlackVanDyke said:

oyster said:

VinceFox said:

JDRoest said:

VinceFox said:

JDRoest said:

VinceFox said:

peoples lives aren't cut short by not being able to have children, nor do they face living in fear and agony by not being able to have children.

i f**kin dis pear.

I'd despair as well if I just posted that. Seriously WIIIIIDDDDDEEEEEE of the mark.

no.

Wanting children is a perfectly natural desire, and to mock people "it's not cutting your life short" just makes yourself look a bit callous.

i fear you may misunderstand me. here's what i'm saying...

-there's a finite amount of money for the health service.
-there's not enough in it as it is to give medication to people with either terminal or massively debilitating illnesses as it is.
-the same pot of money if it isn't big enough already, should not then also be used on trying to conceive. not being able to have kids is not a disease and it's not terminal. prioritise.

in an ideal world they'd have thrown enough money at being able to make me over six foot just by taking a pill, but let's be realistic here. the money is stretched already. nothing to do with being callous, quite the opposite in fact.

So you think a perfectly healthy couple in their 30s, who by no fault of their own, should not receive limited treatment to help them achive the most natural thing in the world. But meanwhile think someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day and is dying of lung cancer is more deserving?

In any case your argument is infantile on the basis that IVF costs a tiny amount of NHS money. Cancer drugs is not such a small amount.

I do think that treatment without which someone will die should be prioritised over something which, however natural, is essentially optional. I think that the preservation of life (yes even that of people whose life is risked by a choice they made) is and should remain a pretty central function of our health service.

The NHS spends billions and billions on non life threatening illnesses or conditions.
IVF is just one of them - and one of the lower spending ones at that.

PS. It's worth noting that the vast majority of IVF babies are born to better educated parents, and hence much more likely over thir lifetimes to pay back the cost of the treatment to help their conception.

[BlackVanDyke]

oyster said:

The NHS spends billions and billions on non life threatening illnesses or conditions.
IVF is just one of them - and one of the lower spending ones at that.

PS. It's worth noting that the vast majority of IVF babies are born to better educated parents, and hence much more likely over thir lifetimes to pay back the cost of the treatment to help their conception.

It does indeed. I was specifically referring to treatment of people (in danger of) dying from cancer, as that was the example you used.