Obviously some strong views on the subject. Just so you know it's unlikely that I can have children either so I could easily run to the NHS for treatment but I haven't (although I was checked a few years ago and all appears to work). That doesn't mean I don't sympathise with others who do want to go down that route and I don't think IVF should be for the rich elite only.

OK I'm going to through a couple more in to the ring:

What about the heroin addict getting methadone on the NHS?
The 'obese' person getting their stomach clamped?
The alcoholic getting a new liver?
The smoker getting free patches? (the list could go on and on).

My Dad has bone cancer. He was a smoker many years ago. Does that mean he can't have cancer treatment?

Whatever our views on the NHS it's not just about fixing ill people. It's not all black and white. IMO we should all be very grateful that we have such a good health service

Aye. Doesn't mean I don't want to give the admin side of stuff one hell of a kick up the arse.

Not at all, as smokers contribute more to the NHS by several billion pounds every year than smokers take out then he should have preferential treatment IMO.

As for alcoholics and those dependent on drugs, they're ill, they have mental health issues that led them to become alcoholics or drug dependent, that is what the NHS is for.

As for obesity, well, if that's just from filling their faces rather than a mental health issue then they shouldn't unless the taxation from fatty foods is increased to such a level that it actually contributes more into the NHS than they take out.

Just my two cents (or select whichever monetary denomination suits you).
There are some, irronically disease realated, reasons why IVF treatment on the NHS is entirely valid.

For example, some treatments (chemotherapy for instance) can significantly reduce or comepletely destroy a presons fertility. In such instances is it not reasonable for that person to save some of their eggs/sperm so that in the event that their fertility is destroyed by their treatment they would still have a possibility for having children that are genetically their own. I grant this only affects a small proportion of people but in my view it's a legitimate reson to have IVF available on the NHS.

You see the point I'm trying to make? People can't say 'don't offer IVF on NHS', it's just wrong. There's plenty of other stuff wrong with this country anyway.

No, I know what you're saying, it appears my point isn't getting across.

Yes you can say 'don't offer IVF on the NHS' because that's not what it's there for, it's to help those with ill health and those who will die without treatment. Offering IVF on the NHS is the equivalent of making every local butcher sell bread, they're not supposed to.

Yes there's plenty of other stuff that's wrong but this discussion, for me, has been about the NHS and its purpose, nothing else. If you just continue to go on to say there's so many other things wrong too then no decision will ever be made or conclusion ever made.

I concede davrosG5 makes a pertinent point, if someone becomes unable to conceive as a result of treatment given by the NHS then in those instances it would not be an unreasonable argument that they then receive help.

But those are individual cases rather a general principle and if the NHS causes the problem then it is, like I say, not unreasonable for them to then rectify that situation.

The NHS currently can't afford to properly treat the people already here, yet people seem to be happy for them to help create more with those very same funds.

<devils advocate>

One could argue that NHS is creating new little tax payers which will one day grow up, and help pay for the service that created it....

</devils advocate>

I think I'll stick my two pen'rth in here...

It's looking very likely that Mrs. Bucket and I won't be able to have children - I won't say why. As you can guess, this makes us sad.

However, we have both accepted that we don't have an entitlement to offspring. We are not going to die because we don't reproduce and, ATM, we're both happy to be not bothered about it. Furthermore, we both refuse to use the NHS to have children as we don't think that's what it should be for. The NHS doesn't have limitless funds and frankly we'd rather the money spent on someone who will die without treatment.

This earth is too full as it is and if we're going to avert total disaster, someone is going to have to decide to act like an adult, make a sacrifice and not have children.

I hear this argument often, being intentionally childless. There are people with children (not many, but some) who seem to believe they have done some great social service by procreating, on the grounds that 'Little johnny will be the doctor looking after you when you're old'. Generally I let it pass, but if I'm in a sour mood I point out they're just as likely to be the druggie mugging me for my pension as the doctor putting me back together afterwards.

It's a zero sum IMO. Some kids will grow up to be net contributers, some will be net receivers. Some will pay lots of taxes and never use the NHS, some will pay hardly any tax, get some horrific disease and only be treatable by regular administering of expensive drugs. Just as the taxes I pay now contribute to the general good of society without me expecting any great acclamation for doing so, I see no reason to particularly thank the next generation for simply doing exactly the same. In the end everyone has a cost to society and a benefit to society, just making more people per se doesn't change that balance.

Jon

Whilst I agree with that and applaud your stance I cant help but think what about the smack heads, crack heads, dole-grabbing, stomach stapling, chronic smoking people out there who get as much, if not more, as any other tax payer (even worse those who contribute NOTHING). Do you not think given what they get you in turn should be entitled to enrich your lives with a little one (if that is what you want)?

No I don't.

1. Nobody has a de facto right to have children just as nobody has a right to have sex. I have the freedom to do both; I do not have any entitlement to either.
   
   
2. It is surely the mark of childishness to say "Because my brother gets a birthday present I should get one as well". It makes no sense to me to say "I will take more so that I get the same as someone else" when I am content with what I have. I waited 30 years to find my wife and I was fortunate enough to find her. If we are fortunate enough to have children then I will count myself blessed. However I will refuse to count myself as less blessed just because I am not a father - that way lies madness.

I think about them a lot as well and, although my thoughts aren't very articulate, I'll have a go.

There are a lot of people in the system who take more than their fair share - that's true (and is usually true of any system that involves people). However, IMO the situation cannot be remedied by either the removal of help or by overly-punitive actions I'll attempt to explain why.

I firmly believe that, although I have rights, I also have an equal if not greater number of responsibilities. One of these responsibilities, I believe, is to show people how to be citizens rather than punish them when they don't.

-- Bloody hell I'm not explaining this very well --

We have some strange markers of how we, as a society, judge success. Success is a branded, fashionable thing that involves going to university, owning your own house, getting married, having a nice car, making some money, owning the next big gadget, being able to retire early and your children following in your footsteps. If you deviate from this odd ideal you're somehow a failure.

When we make success a narrow vision of life that is unattainable by the vast majority, we shouldn't be all that surprised when vast numbers of people fail. If, for no good reason, you set the bar too high, you shouldn't be surprised when most competitors can't jump that high. And when you keep setting the bar too high, you shouldn't be surprised when people get too jaded to carry on trying.

We, as a society, howl and moan when people with few prospects, little hope and no ambition sink their lives into addictions and other destructive behaviours. They usually go through their sad, wretched lives with no affirmation, achievement or positive feedback and the rest of us are surprised at their not getting better when we tell them off and do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

Instead of castigating those who seem to destroy their lives and "take take take", perhaps we should look at our values as a society. Why is a plumber who earns £30k a year seen as somehow less successful than a middle management pen-pusher on the same money? Why is an NHS cleaner on £11k somehow less successful than a surgeon on £80k? Why is going to university succeeding where going to college is a failure? Why is owning your own house the right thing where renting is the wrong thing? Why is owning a new 3-series BMW more successful than catching the bus? Why is success based on what you do rather than on the smile on your face?

Those you mention aren't the only destructive, grabbing or failing people in society either. What about the sales rep who wanted to be a scientist but didn't work hard enough? What about parents whose only measure of happiness is what they own and teach their offspring to believe the same? What about high-earners who give some vanishing percentage of their wealth to charity and then claim back the tax relief? What about people who drudge to and from work with their iPod on and never speak to anyone else around them?

Are they fully-functioning members of society? Really?

Because surely life is about more than money Success should be about doing what you're good at and being contented doing it. Success should be about making the lives of those around you better. Success should be about the world being a better place for you having been in it.

Don't shout at a fatty because he eats too much; go walking with him in the park, show him how to cook properly or help him find a bit of peace so he stops self-medicating with food. Don't moan at dole-dossers; help them find an occupation that will give them some sense of self-worth instead. Many of them have never been taught how to function and fall off the rails when real life deals them a blow. In my experience people who destroy their or someone else's life do so because they've lost hope and nothing left but shame and bitterness. They need the help of the rest of us, not more shame.

(Sorry for the mind-fart btw )

Very valid, and will pay our pensions in the years to come.

Can I get an economy sized batch of '+1' here please?

TB, it may have been a 'brainfart' but it's possibly the best post I've read in meeting place in a very long time.

Jon

couldn't agree more ...

What happens if I die before I really need the NHS? Surely I've wasted thousands of pounds on other people who have been cheating death and perhaps not had a brilliant quality of life (remembering how my Grampy was in the last 12 months of his life it was almost cruel that the NHS kept him going).

Rusty, great post, but it doesn't really relate to this thread. Success is only measurable by our own standards, if you take that to be earning £80k then that's success and you haven't been successful until you get there, if being successful is driving a bus then your not successful until you get there. Some will find it easy and some will find it hard.

What would make me really happy is getting married and having a child and being financially stable. Houses, the latest gadgets and holidays aren't on my list of asperations. A son or a daughter that I can pass on my knowledge to, that I can pass on my enthusiasm to. It's not like it's a material thing, I'd give the latest gadget and many of my few worldly possessions to be able to have a child.

Otherwise, I'm currently in a job that just about supports me and I'm happy for the time being. Can't really make that better, can you?