IVF, should it be available via the NHS?
 

OK

Here in the UK you can get IVF on the NHS. Been many documentaries following couples desperate for children getting it on the NHS at least once.

I personally think IVF is unethical considering the number of children who could be adopted and given a good home.

So who agrees, who doesn't?

I'd like to say no because I'd rather see the money used on the sick - as you say, people can adopt. However I have to say that I don't know, because personal reasons stop me being able to say 'no' 100%.

Easy there Steed, 'these people' haven't done anything wrong, they just want to have children.

And clog up the N.H.S and divert N.H.S money which would be better spent on Theatres, A&E, and so on I got no time for these people along with alcoholics and drug addicts who also clog the system up. :mad:

I vote no.

What's the number of infertile Muslim women? If the number is about the same as any other population/group, then it would be a mistake to allow it for demographic reasons alone.

YES, I needs lots of kids in my country to pay taxes to be used for my pension !

Drebbel, don't come here to retire you need to be rich, but that's another subject.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r-IFV-MK19.jpg

I didn't know you could get them on the NHS? I must be seeing the wrong doctors...would sure sort out stress problems...I'll have to recommend it when I go there next...what...it's not IFV, it's IVF? Aaaah...

Well...to be honest with you, Britains population is growing at a rate of which we cannot sustain it, we have an high elderly population and a rapidly growing youth population; most of the former centred on the Suffolk coastline and most of the latter in a council estate in East London, if anything we should be discouraging people to have children not encouraging them! I know that we're close to becoming an [geography mode] aging population [geography mode/] but sometimes being on the balance is better than being an extreme in both directions. It'll have hell to play in the future, we're already seeing it in house prices and lack of housing. Building more houses is only a short term solution, sooner or later you're going to run out of land...or, as current [ITV :nope:] news headlines would have it, run out of water.
So...it's probably best not to...it's a tough decision and I know that it helps many people, but at the end of the day, at what cost?

WTF?

anyway, the nhs is too overstretched at the moment -- we have to decide what services are truly necessary. what's more important -- increasing the availability of treatment for life-threatening conditions or allowing a couple to have kids when there's already plenty of children that need adopting?

That wouldn't work as intended:
http://www.apsoc.ox.ac.uk/Oxpop/publ...files/wp03.pdf
(yes, that discusses immigration, but other methods for getting more people would cause similar problems if you wanted to solve that problem, a ridiculous population explosion)

I don't get it, for years now we've been told that national healthcare was the bees knees. From what you guys are saying it isn't all that great...

It's a good idea in theory, a bit like the Labour party.

Interesting.

August the National Health is a great thing, except Labour likes to change things for the sake of it. Generally it works well, you hear about the cock ups because they are rightly so big cock ups but most of the time I think things work well.

I can't fault the treatment that my wife got when she gave birth.

Then again I live in Scotland which is a bit different to Englandshire, Thank god....

That was to date, the funnies thing I have ever heard.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: