Should the NHS pay for IVF?

IVF should be free for infertile couples, according to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).

The watchdog recommends that couples should not have to pay for at least their first three attempts at the treatment.

NICE said it was an attempt to set national standards for fertility treatment to end the existing "postcode lottery" for women.

One in six couples have fertility problems and there are there are 27,000 IVF attempts in Britain every year.

Should IVF treatment be paid for by the NHS?

---

Thank you for your e-mails. This debate is now closed. The following comments reflect the balance of views we received:

SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Sarah Woolley, UK Should IVF be free on the NHS? Send us your suggestions for Have Your Say debates

This debate appears to label infertile couples as selfish and terminally ill patients as neglected. Neither is the case. I have seen loved ones suffer and die of cancer and other major diseases which is terrible, but I also know couples who go through a kind of torture due to infertility - to the extent that it often causes their overall health to suffer. Infertile couples are not selfish. Many would gladly rather pay the private costs than put up with heartless comments such as those on these pages, except some can't afford to pay to be 'normal'. Anyone who says IVF is a drain on NHS resources should give up their rights to maternity benefit, free maternity hospital care, free schooling for their children and free contraceptive pill prescriptions. They should also hope that their own children don't tell them one day that they are infertile and will never be able to have children because someone chose to put NHS funding into healthcare for smokers, drinkers, obese people and people daft enough to injure themselves playing some sport or other. I hopefully will not need IVF but I know people who have not gone ahead because of the cost. Nature creates a lot of cruel blows - none should be discriminated against in favour of others.
Tracey, UK

I have twins by IVF, paid for privately by myself over 10 years ago at a total cost with accommodation of over 8,000 pounds, I am also short sighted and have the usual dental treatment. I have to pay for the eye and dental treatment so why not IVF, either the NHS pays for every thing or it decides some reasonable guide lines as to what is not to be treated. I'd like to see first class treatment of serious and life threatening illness and the rest can all be private.
William, Malaysia ex UK

In-vitro fertilization is suicide, in the long run. If a farmer were to breed from sterile animals, then he would soon have a sterile flock, and so shall it be for us. Only the naturally fertile should breed, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. I wonder what Charles Darwin would make of our stupidity.
Colin Hall, UK

Maybe this is a forms of means testing for having a child. If you can't afford a few grand to have a child how could you possibly afford to bring one up, or is that another thing me, the taxpayer, should pay on your behalf? Nobody is saying you can't have children, we're just saying stand on your own two feet and pay yourself - it's not a right to have children.
Graeme, England

Treatment should not be denied to anyone who is suffering physically or mentally David, UK

The UK is very fortunate to have an NHS. While it exists treatment should not be denied to anyone who is suffering physically or mentally regardless of the cause. Anything less is not civilised and is morally reprehensible. Unfortunately this does not leave any money in the pot to provide luxuries like children for couples. Especially since the same pot also pays for children without parents. Perhaps if a childless couple took on the responsibility for an orphan the NHS could then afford to pay for them to try to have a child of their own as well.
David, UK

Why did the NHS pay for me to have a non life-threatening phobia treated yet my best friend has had to fork out thousands for IVF. We have both paid taxes all our working lives, I just feel that I was lucky to have the "right illness"
Ella, England

According to a few people on here I'm not entitled to say NO because I haven't gone through the 'heartache' of being infertile; but I haven't had a life threatening disease either, you don't need to have had both types of conditions to decide which is obviously the most important.
Elliot, England

It would seem that the NHS can't even afford to pay for a reasonable dental health system. Surely it should concentrate on getting the basics right before attempting to increase the population of an already over congested island?
Andrew Leah, UK

It's a treatment that can bring hope to thousands Ben Drake, York, UK

Of course IVF should be available on the NHS. It's a treatment that can bring hope to thousands. But how to fund it? Well, why not tax the multi-billion profits of the big drug companies? They make plenty out of the NHS, let's take some back!
Ben Drake, York, UK

To all those people saying "no" - I hope you NEVER, EVER find yourselves in the position I used to be in, which I would not even wish upon my worst enemy. Please keep your cruel, thoughtless and ill-informed opinions to yourselves until you are truly qualified to judge those less fortunate.
Chrissie, Scotland

Yes, the NHS should pay for IVF treatment, on the conditions that the couple have prove of no children, from their relationship/previous relationship and they have tried other sources of fertility treatment that have failed in the pass eg; fertility drugs, IUI treatments. Only those that are childless. Unfortunately I had to pay for my own treatment last year, but fortunately we were lucky to have had twins first time round.
Sharmon, Scotland

While not unsympathetic to this problem which can loom large in the life of some. The fact is that the National HEALTH Service should focus on exactly that - the National Health. Money is not available for everything. The line must be drawn somewhere and there are more important national health problems that should take priority.
Fred Marton, England

Can those of you who answer "no" to the IVF question honestly say you lead as healthy a life as you possibly can? Rachel, UK

If I went out, drank six pints, got into my car and ploughed into the opposite lane of the A34 on my way home, killing several people and causing myself massive internal injuries, I would be treated on the NHS. Depending on the extent of my injuries, I could cost the NHS thousands. Is that a more worthy use of resources than helping an infertile couple? If, after my prison sentence, I continued to drink six pints a night, I might end up needing a liver transplant to save my life. Again this would be a huge cost to the NHS. Would that be a better use of resources than allowing an infertile couple to have a child?

I'm teetotal and a non-smoker. I eat healthily and exercise three times a week. I'm doing everything I can to reduce the chances of needing expensive NHS treatment over the years. I'm also infertile.

Can those of you who answer "no" to the IVF question honestly say you lead as healthy a life as you possibly can? You ask why should you pay for my lifestyle choice of wanting children? Well, why should I pay for your lifestyle choices of smoking, drinking, eating unhealthily or not exercising by subsidising your treatment for potentially avoidable cancer, heart disease, stroke, chronic lung disease etc?
Rachel, UK

Sorry but no. The NHS needs to treat illness and pain with the scarce resources it has.
Sam Peld, UK

I think the point here really should be fairness, with this issue as well as the other postcode lotteries regarding NHS treatment. At the moment, the situation is clearly unfair with some people getting treatments free whilst others can't. A decision needs to be made on these issues one way or the other so it is fair for everyone.
Amber, UK

For the people who do not need the treatment, it's so easy to say "no funding". However, everyone wants to have their own baby. And there is nothing wrong in that. Maybe this treatment can be partially subsidised by NHS while a major chunk to be paid by the patient themselves.
Mahesh Gogate, UK

Upsetting as it may be, I feel that there are far more important areas of the health service that this money should be spent. I am sure it is far more heartbreaking for parents to lose a child through cancer than it is not to be able to conceive. Until the health service is sorted out then they should pay for the treatment themselves.
T V Moore, Wales

No, I do not think that the NHS should pay for IVF. The NHS has enough money problems without dealing with IVF. I don't feel it has a place in the NHS, it is not life threatening or an illness. The people wanting IVF should use private health care. The NHS needs to get back to core functionality.
Lee, UK

This is such a complicated issue, with so much emotion involved on both sides of the argument. I am almost 40, single, and would love to have children, I have no idea if I am even fertile, but come next month I will be too old to take advantage of free treatment. But my lot is my lot, that's what Life has given me. I'd love to be married, with kids, but I'm not, and it looks less likely day by day. Can the NHS give me free treatment for that? No. I just have to live with, and get used to the fact it won't happen. If I can do that, on my own, then couples in a loving relationship, who have each other for support, should be able to live without children. We can't always have what we want. C'est la vie.
Susan, UK

I just wonder how many of those people who are so opposed to NHS funding IVF have problems with fertility. I understand the arguments about the funds being limited but I also personally know people who have problems conceiving and, believe me, it is a huge medical problem for them.
Ada, UK

Many people are now not able to get treatment for even fairly normal conditions because of lack of resources Keith, England

I am sure that not being able to have children causes much sadness however many people are now not able to get treatment for even fairly normal conditions because of lack of resources and are being forced to seek private health care and pay or carry on suffering. The NHS will never be able to do all that is asked of it and I don't believe IVF treatment is of a sufficient priority to take scarce NHS funds.
Keith, England

I bet that most of the people saying NO are the ones who already have children or have decided they don't want children. Having gone through the heartache of being unable to have children, and only being allowed three attempts at St Mary's (and having to pay for our own drugs) I know how depressing and costly it be. Of coarse the NHS should pay to help the people who want children after all they too have paid their money into the pot. Somebody mentioned that if a childless couple want IVF then they should take out a loan .....What a sad person. I too can be heartless and say if somebody needs MS or cancer treatment then they should take out a loan for their treatment or just book themselves a holiday, shut up and die leaving more money in the NHS pot. But I'm not heartless and believe everybody that pays into the pot should get whatever treatment they need.
Tony Thomas, Manchester UK

A close family member has MS and is not eligible for drugs that would help their condition. There appears to be no consistency in how these things are decided. It should be ill people first, IVF, boob jobs and sex changes next if there's any cash left over.
Mattur, Sheffield, UK

I find some of the comments on this page so incredibly harsh! Unless you have been in the situation where you are infertile you really are not in a position to judge how that affects someone else. Saying that you won't die if you can't have a child is an immature response. If having a child will improve your quality of life and you are willing to go through the trauma of the IVF process then who are we to judge? And yes, my husband and I have been diagnosed as infertile and no, we are not willing to go through IVF - our choice, although here we would have to pay for it.
Deb, UK

Infertility is a common name for several medical conditions. We pay National Insurance so that the NHS will treat our medical conditions. It's covered in several other European countries, but then children are seen as human beings, not lifestyle choices, in other European countries.
Christine, UK

Definately not. A good friend of mine has been suffering from the effects of MS for nearly 10 years now, and most of the time is in indescribable pain. However, she is unable to receive the drugs she needs due to the current "post code lottery" nature of NHS funding. I don't see why public money should be spent on IVF (which is essentially a lifestyle choice) when there is clearly not enough money for those who are genuinely suffering.
Kirsty, Germany (ex UK)

Most people just don't know the sheer heartache of not being able to bear children Ben Temperton, UK

For anyone arguing that if nature does not intend you to have children then couples should just deal with it, I would suggest you never take antibiotics or any other man-made medicine. We already play God every single day. Most people just don't know the sheer heartache of not being able to bear children.
Ben Temperton, UK

Couldn't NICE concentrate on more important issues other than babies, such as heart by-pass operations, mental health problems, new hospital in Crawley in memory of Princess Diana? I do have sympathy for childless couples but fear you really are on the wrong road to recovery of the NHS.
Karen Leggett, England

Not being able to conceive is a problem with a normal body function, and is therefore a health problem. I don't see why the NHS should not pay for any reasonable treatment for that. The fact that it is not a life-threatening disease does not change that. The NHS also pays for broken legs, and they are normally not life-threatening.
John, UK

If those for whom IVF was the only route to having children then had to choose whether to spend a specific, limited sum of money on IVF or on the timely treatment of a sick relative (who had no other source of income) then any decent couple would surely opt for the latter. On a nationwide scale the same decision has to be right, unless we are all going to vote to put taxes up and make money available to solve all medical issues. Childlessness isn't fair but it's easier to live with than many of the medical problems other people have to cope with.
Karen, UK

Yes it definitely should be made available on the NHS. Why should the poor people with fertility problems be robbed of the chance of having children?
Geoff, UK

I am at a loss. At the moment I pay just under £100 per year for a certificate allowing me an array of inhalers, tablets, etc on prescription without having to pay the extortionate fee for individual prescriptions. This is for asthma which, without treatment, would be at best crippling and at worst fatal. When the government is telling us that there is not the money available for people in situations similar to mine who NEED treatment, how can there possibly be money available for IVF?
Richard Carr, UK

My wife and I are going to having IVF shortly and fortunately we live in an area where we get two free attempts on the NHS. I do not see why couples such as ourselves cannot be entitled to free IVF we both pay our taxes and are respectable. It is not fare that we struggle yet there are many illegitimate children out there in our society for which we are all paying for and will probably be paying for for at least 16 years.
Dan, UK

The money the NHS would have to spend would be much better spent into research on curing fertility problems John Ellis, UK

No, it should not. If you cannot afford to pay for a course of IVF, even by getting a loan that can be paid off over a long period, then there's no way you could afford to raise a child and should not be encouraged to do so. The money the NHS would have to spend would be much better spent into research on curing fertility problems.
John Ellis, UK

No I don't think the NHS should pay for IVF not when there are people who have to pay for drugs with conditions that are life threatening. Without these drugs they will have a very short life expectancy whereas not having a child is not going to affect your life expectancy.
Dave, UK

Unbelievable, the world is experiencing an unsustainable population explosion which we continually fail to control due to political correctness. Sure, it's heart breaking for the couples involved but they'll just have to deal with the problems themselves. Stop encouraging people to keep churning out babies! I'm not heartless but this is simply the cold reality of the situation.
Chris S, UK

The problem here is that if it isn't available on the NHS the private sector can write its own cheque. As in other non-essential areas, a system is required where the recipient pays, but pays a fair price and one which reflects whatever benefits the Government sees to wider society.
Martin Bucknall, Scotland

The simple answer is 'NO' the NHS should not pay for this treatment. Not having a child maybe a problem for some but its not life threatening. If they want a child so badly then go and adopt, there are hundreds of kids out there needing a good home.
Garry Smith, UK

Under no circumstances should the NHS, i.e. us tax payers, be asked to pay for a voluntary procedure that is nothing to do with the medical health of the woman and certainly not the man. There is NO right to be able to bear children, it is a fact of nature that some couples are not able to conceive. We should listen to nature rather than pander to the whims of some. IVF is very expensive and the NHS has far more important things to address with what money it has than bringing even more children into this over-crowded world. If I could, I would refuse to pay my taxes for this. I have two childless couples as friends and they don't want IVF.
Mike P, England

The debate really lies in whether the ability to have a child should be considered as healthcare, and if so should NHS resources be directed towards people trying for a baby as the expense of other areas of healthcare.
TC, UK

Most of us who need IVF treatment need to because of anatomical problems, nothing that is our fault Zoe, England

I think that it is more sensible that they have reduced the amount of funded "attempts" down to three from six as that sounded a little excessive. However I think that it is a joy for all of us that need IVF in the imminent future that help is available. There are many sceptics out there who claim that this should not be funded by the NHS as it is not classed as "necessary". However, it could be said that anyone who needs treatment for illnesses that have been self inflicted should not receive treatment; bypass surgery should not be given if they continue to smoke etc. NHS treatment should be available to all, and most of us who need IVF treatment need to because of anatomical problems, nothing that is our fault.
Zoe, England

The NHS is already experiencing a funding crisis, providing IVF treatment to couples with fertility problems will only make matters worse. Although I do not feel the American system of holding insurance policies to be the best way forward, I do feel that with NHS funding being at such low levels may be the way forward is to provide emergency treatment only.
Sarah, UK

I do not think IVF should be free. People are not going to die if they don't have children. The money would be better spent on trying to provide beds for sick people. If nature does not intend you to have children then that is it. I am sorry to sound harsh. Adoption should be made easier.
Gareth Wynn, UK

The NHS should pay for IVF when, and only when, it can first of all manage to care for the terminally-ill, those in physical pain, patients who will die without treatment, care for the mentally ill and operations to restore basic senses such as sight and hearing...no-one ever died directly from infertility or wanting to have a child. It will cripple and destroy the NHS at a cost to the living.
Lorraine, UK

The NHS should concentrate on improving the health of the living Andy, UK

There are far too many people in the UK already. The NHS should concentrate on improving the health of the living, not try to create new lives. If infertile couples want children, they should adopt. It is selfish of them to do expect the state to finance their treatment.
Andy, UK

I can't understand why there is an issue with the cost of IVF Treatment being paid for on the NHS. In the short term it will cost the NHS allot of money, however when these children become adults then they will start contributing far more money in to the NHS in through tax than it will cost for the IVF Treatment it self.
Paul Hughes, England