Yes basically. More couples are having IVF and more of them are older women "past their prime". They are also the ones who are more likely to require multiple cycles of IVF and the NHS will only ever pay for one cycle per couple. Frustratingly, women can get around this by getting into a new relationship with a new partner for 12 months and then go back for another free round of IVF etc.

In my own (personal, not professional) opinion, once women have hit a certain age, they shouldn't be able to IVF privately or otherwise. They're more likely to run into problems or have complications of IVF. But they become so fixated on the desire to have a child that it can really warp them mentally - almost borderline psychotic. Adopt one of the many homeless children instead or take in foster children. None of the risks from the pregnancy/childbirth but you still get the joy of raising a child as your own.

Yes but women can be crazy as can be seen from TV programs like Bridezilla's. Also adoption or fostering is also impossible if you are above a certain age. So IVF is the only route.

I have no problem with them having IVF, but they should pay for it themselves.

I do think that people should be helped a couple of times. Why should it be the preserve of the rich only to be able to delay kids? Over time the chances of conceiving might improve with new techniques.

LMFTFY. I don't see how gender affects things here.

The limit for IVF is between 35-39 I believe, when a lot of woman start having children in their 30s nowadays.

IVF is provided by the NHS because children are necessary for the country. If it's not the case I don't see why there's child benefit either.

Women can have children naturally well in to their 40s so why can't they have IVF? And saying 'just adopt' is such a blinkered view. Not everyone is suitable to adoption. Instead of being so judgemental I wish people would have a more supportive attitude. Live and let live I say.

I went to have fertility checks in my 30s and although they found nothing wrong they offered me IVF but by that time I'd split with my boyfriend. If I chose to have children now according to you lot I'm past it and if I wanted IVF I should pay.

To me that's like saying fat people or smokers should pay for their health care. Where do you draw the line?

Adoption isn't exactly straightforward either. Red and I have enquired in two counties and are not deemed eligible, me because I'm 24kg overweight and Red because he's an occasional smoker. To adopt isn't the "easy" option and IVF would seem to be more straightforward and involve less hassle.

Where would you draw the cut off? How many cycles do you think they should have? Who should pay for it all? What about the increased risk of complications as they age? What about the increased risk of Down's syndrome?

I'm happy with the current guidelines which are:


And success rates:



FWIW I do feel some of the adoption criteria is ridiculous. They have more stringent rules than for people who are able to naturally conceive.

What annoys me a lot is the clauses in private insurance such as : if you have a child through IVF none of the healthcare related with the birth of that child will be covered. Private ins. in this countryis such a waste of time :S

That would explain how she had recently gone through a divorce and yet was jumping straight into IVF...

I believe if you want to have children you should be able to afford them. That includes conception be it free (the conventional way) or expensive (IVF).

That's one of the reasons I don't have children. I know they're expensive.

EDIT It's quite funny you say that considering there's people on benefits who pop them out like rabbits in order to get more money. What about the foster parents who do it for the cash rather than love of children?

Totally agree. However currently, my taxes pay for other people's children, including people who earn way more than me. it's hardly fair, is it?

Life isn't fair unfortunately