Petition against ivf meds cutbacks on dps card

LegacyUser

ive put this in trying to concieve, but as here gets a bit more traffic, please sign the petition,

infertility is a huge financial burden on a couple, and there is no assistance from the government other than the dps card, and now the are changing is so only three gos of ivf meds are covered,

the cost of one ivf cycle is around 5,000, and if you have to pay for the meds also this comes to about 4,000, bringing one cycle of ivf to a total of 9,000.

this puts huge financial strain on a couple already stressed to the last by being infertile.
please sign and pass it on to friends or family.

one in six couples in ireland go through infertility, it could be you, your family or your neighbours.


http://petitions.tigweb.org/HSEcutbacks

ceannair06

Sorry but I disagrre vehemently with public funds being used for IVF.

There are limited monies to go around and I'd like things like cancer and Alzheimer's to be covered first before we placate the selfish desires of some women.

And yes, I am female.

bayles

You also probably have children

ceannair06

bayles wrote: »

You also probably have children

Actually I don't.

When the time comes to have them if nature tells me I can't then I will look to adopt one of the millions of children unfortunate enough to be unwanted.

I will not ask someone else to spend thousands and thousands of euro to have one.

tallaght01

That's a pretty harsh stance to take, in fairness.

What we should be doing is, when money isn't so tight in the country, set up a service within the HSE to do IVF. Do it all in-house, which should make it much cheaper to do in the first place. There's no real need for it to be so expensive IMHO.

Rev. Kitchen

I dont agree with the cut backs i think we have more than enough money in this country to cover all these issues if we just spent it properly but i wont be signing it as internet petitions are the single most useless thing that has ever come about.

bayles

All you people have no idea what you are talking about so please stop posting rubbish , untill you have done your research none of you are in a position to comment with uneducated blinkered views . if you want to come on here at least post a cogent argument.
Adoption.......Woman you obviously dont have the first clue what you are talking about, to adopt a child would take at best 5 to 10 years from ireland (when children become available) and there is so much legalities involved and also money when adopting from abroad, and how dare you call women who want to concieve with the help of IVF "selfish" . Your comments are apalling and hurtfull to women everywhere i only hope you dont find yourself longing for a child and knowing you may never have one , Infertility is not a lifestyle choice
If people start coming on here posting those kind of views i guarenty they will soon come up against a barrage of women who disagree with them.

And yes i am a man and i DO know what i am talking about

Nevyn

If this thread is not kept civil it will be locked and deleted.

StormWarrior

I agree totally with ceannair. There are simply not enough public funds to pay for things that people really need as it is and no one NEEDS ivf. It's sad if you want a biological child of your own and can't have one, but hey I really want to win the lottery and that isn't happening for me either. It angers me greatly that any public funds at all are put towards ivf.

There are often good biological reasons why a couple can't concieve (such as being genetically too close for example), it's nature's way of trying not to produce children with serious defects. Instead of petitions to spend more public money on ivf (which, imo, amounts to theft) how about some petitions to make it quicker and easier to adopt?

And btw I speak as someone whose fertility has potentially been damaged by radiation therapy, I would probably like a child one day in the future and find it difficult/impossible to produce one of my own, I certainly do NOT expect public funds to be used to treat me for this.

LegacyUser

I wasnt going to get involved with this discussion but I think you can agree that it is highly emotive and can understand why some posters have gotten quite upset.
I am a woman who has been suffering from infertility for more than 4 years now. And I am quite upset.

Remarks such as woman who want IVF are selfish and infertility is because they are closely related to their husbands are just insensitive and inflammatory. You wouldnt say these things to someone with a different disease-yes infertility is considered a disease.

They are also highly offensive and I just hope to god it never happens to you. Infertility has been singularly the hardest thing my partner and I have ever gone through-and we've had some fairly rough times over the years. I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy.

And if drug treament was denied to someone suffering from another non-life threatening illness, then there would be alot more talk in the media about it and uproar from the general public. Thankfully there are alot of angry people out there who have just heard about this-hundreds or people so far and we expect that to grow in number as more and more people hear about it. This was done very quietly by the HSE.

I'll throw a different angle on it too-what if you found yourself in a steady relationship and you both decide your going to start a family and further down the line when things haven't happened, you discover that there is nothing the matter physically with you (the woman) but there are problems with your partner (the male)-and IVF is your only option, does that make you the woman selfish for wanting to do IVF? Do you say no to IVF and deny your husband the chance to conceive his own child?
If the problems are on the womans side-again do you say no to IVF and deny your partner the chance to conceive his own child?
Like anything its not black and white-most things rarely are. And until you have been put in that position, I dont really know how you could possibly comment.

It is only when you decide you would like a child or have one already that you can in anyways appreciate how insensitive your comments actually are.
And just because you happen to disagree with IVF and your a woman doesnt mean that your opinion trumps everyone elses.
My partner is a man and wants a baby just as much as I do but because he is a man does that somehow mean his wishes are less important than mine?

I felt completely different before I decided to have a family-didnt even like kids that much-but that completely changes when you do become ready-its all you want and all you can think about and is so so cruel when you discover that it will be difficult and that IVF or adoption is your only option.

Believe me when I say that IVF was not a road I wanted to go down. We looked at all the other options before making a decision to go with IVF. And if you had any idea what a womans body has to go through during an IVF cycle, the "selfish" would not be how you would describe her-anything but-like any parent I would go through anything for my baby. Certainly not looking for a medal but for people to refer to it as selfish and the easy option-that is just so wrong.

So what your saying is that IVF is a selfish choice and that we should just accept what has happened to us right? Becase no one "needs" a child? Then really your attitude should be that we shouldnt have children at all.
But its different if its adoption somehow? You dont mind paying your taxes to help the state fund adoption? The state pays social workers wages and supports the adoption foundation.
Whats the difference? What makes one more right or wrong than the other? Nothing basically!!

Our other option apart from IVF was adoption-we have spent years looking into adoption and we decided recently it wasnt something we would pursue. I have my reasons for this but mainly it is because international adoption is condemned by most childrens charities across the globe and am part of a family where adoption has occured and it wasnt one of the nice stories you read about in the magazines. There are lots of sucessful adoptions but this option does not feel right for me. Some childrens charities go as far as saying that they feel international adoption is selfish!!! I dont agree with that but again its not black and white is it?

I dont agree with adoption but I certainly would not suggest for a minute that the State should stop funding towards adoption-and certainly wouldnt be on any boards condemning couples choosing to adopt or writing nasty comments about them.
No more than its right for the State to stop funding the medications we require through the DPS scheme. In fact the State spends alot more towards adopton than it does covering some medications for our IVF cycles. One is not more right than the other.

In other countries not only do they fund the entire IVF treatment for couples (we aren't getting that!), they also fund gastric band operations, breast augmentation, nose jobs, and lots of other things that you may or may not disagree with or feel people "need" but as a society they have decided to give these options to people.
We have no idea how these patients feel or what they are going through and if it can vastly improve a persons quality of life, then who are we to judge and say thats wrong?

I am now 12 weeks pregnant from an IVF cycle. You have NO idea how this has changed my life, how happy me and my hubbie are, how delighted and excited our families and friends are who have seen us go through this horrible ordeal-so to call me selfish after everything we have been through is just disgusting really.

LegacyUser

Couple of quick points . .. .

The DPS scheme is open to every individual/family in Ireland . Any body can apply and have their expenditure on prescription medication capped at €100pm . Nicorette and viagra are examples of drugs that can presently be purchased through this scheme once prescribed . Couples with a medical card will still be able to avail of fertility drugs through this scheme but other couples will not .

AFAIK Ireland is the only Western country IVF treatment is either not available on the public health system or covered by a health insurer . IVF treatment in Ireland is approximately 5k per round and the DPS scheme is the only concession that couples receive . Without this concession the cost rises to 10k per round with a success rate of anywhere between 25-40%. Couples bear the entire procedure cost , all consultant fees , all fees for scans and for blood tests . The only money they receive from the government is as part of a scheme that is open to every person in Ireland .

Infertility is not usually caused by couples being genetically too close it's caused by many things and sometimes several things . In my case I took a knock playing football . Nothing serious at the time , just a bruise in the wrong place ,but apparently enough to cause infertility . If I'd lost some teeth , an eye or a finger nobody would complain at me receiving treatment even though I don't need all my fingers .

When people claim interest tax relief on their mortgage , when they claim a grant from the government for a well , pellet boiler or any number of things it's my tax money that's contributing to this too . Are these people being selfish for claiming these things that are available to all or would I be the selfish one if I decide they don't deserve it .

hallelujajordan

I think we should try to remove the emotion from the argument and instead have a debate about the substantive issue. . Which is the governments intention to remove medication funding after 3 rounds of IVF.

Personally, I whole-heartedly agree with fertility treatment . . I have 2 kids and have been trying for a third for several years now . . we went to a fertility clinic about 18 months ago and since then have taken all the steps up to the point of IVF (Clomid, TSI, IUI etc . .) before we decided we had had enough (and could afford no more). Our decision was easier because we have 2 happy healthy girls. I can only imagine how difficult it is for childless couples in the same situation and I am appalled at some of the comments on here. .

However, in the UK the NHS funds IVF (about 25% of all IVF cycles are funded) but they do impose a limit. It used to be that they would only fund one cycle, now it appears they will fully fund up to three. The reason for this is that the chances of success after three failed cycles is dramatically reduced and as with all other areas of healthcare, the economics have to play a role. The HSE has a fixed budget of money and has to make prudent decisions about how to spend that money. Instead of funding unlimited medication cycles I would much prefer to see them invest more money in other areas of fertility treatment, including full funding of IVF for a limited number of cycles.

I am now 12 weeks pregnant from an IVF cycle. You have NO idea how this has changed my life, how happy me and my hubbie are, how delighted and excited our families and friends are who have seen us go through this horrible ordeal-so to call me selfish after everything we have been through is just disgusting really.

I have a small idea how much this has changed your life . . Good luck with it all !

metrovelvet

Im sorry, but with all the hospitals shutting down, with Crumlin in crisis, with sick children all over the country who's lives and health are at risk, you want money for IVF?

A lack of IVF does not compromise your health or your life, why should you get financial assistance for it from public health?

tman

Bit of a harsh stance to be taking here, but if you can't afford a few grand for the treatment, can you afford to support a child properly for the next 18+ years?

hallelujajordan

tman wrote: »

Bit of a harsh stance to be taking here, but if you can't afford a few grand for the treatment, can you afford to support a child properly for the next 18+ years?

Harsh, ill-informed and incredibly ignorant. . .

ceannair06

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Harsh, ill-informed and incredibly ignorant. . .

And yet true and absolutely relevant.

I've known people who have spent E30,000 on IVF treatment.

Imagine how much good that could do to a foster child ? It could give them stability, education, a good home, everything.

How good would that be ?

No, you want to "experience" being a mother.

Garbage. Try being a "mum" not an incubator. Selfish, selfish, SELFISH!

hallelujajordan

metrovelvet wrote: »

A lack of IVF does not compromise your health or your life, why should you get financial assistance for it from public health?

This is an incredibly ill-informed view. Failure-to-conceive is a medical condition, an enormous source of stress and a significant compromise to mental health. It is appropriate that this condition be funded through the public health services, although with scientifically imposed limits.

ceannair06

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This is an incredibly ill-informed view. Failure-to-conceive is a medical condition, an enormous source of stress and a significant compromise to mental health. It is appropriate that this condition be funded through the public health services, although with scientifically imposed limits.

Genuine question:

Do you not think that women using IVF to have babies after menopause are doing your cause a disservice ?

I don't agree with IVF being allowed free to everyone, but I can see why some women might want to have a child.

I just don't see why fostering and adoption or even surrogacy aren't investigated.

Dades

Am I right in saying the cutbacks only cuts financial assistance after three attempts with IVF?

Is this per individual, or, for example, if you have one child via successful IVF do you get three more subsidised attempts?

I have to say I didn't know the treatment was funded at all, and I don't think three attempts only is wholly unreasonable in the current climate.

Does anyone have any figures as to what the spend on this is p/a?

ceannair06

Dades wrote: »

Am I right in saying the cutbacks only cuts financial assistance after three attempts with IVF?

Is this per individual, or, for example, if you have one child via successful IVF do you get three more subsidised attempts?

I have to say I didn't know the treatment was funded at all, and I don't think three attempts only is wholly unreasonable in the current climate.

Does anyone have any figures as to what the spend on this is p/a?

I have to say I vehemently disagree with anyone already having a child being given IVF.

This is meant to help with infertility, if you have a child then it has helped.

If you want another child, or you want one with a different partner then it is bordering on the selfish. Again.

LegacyUser

Originally Posted by Dades
Am I right in saying the cutbacks only cuts financial assistance after three attempts with IVF?

Is this per individual, or, for example, if you have one child via successful IVF do you get three more subsidised attempts?

I have to say I didn't know the treatment was funded at all, and I don't think three attempts only is wholly unreasonable in the current climate.

Does anyone have any figures as to what the spend on this is p/a?

Strictly speaking there is no financial assisstance for IVF . The couple pay for the proceedure , consultant fees , nurses fees and for all blood tests and scans . All in this runs to about €5k . There is virtually no IVF on public health and there is no IVF treatment covered by private insurance in Ireland . I believe we are alone in this in Europe and in most of the developed world .

Once the treatment starts you're prescribed a down regulation drug , an up regualtion drug and a trigger . The cost of these drugs is around €5k . In Ireland there's a drug payment scheme which anybody can join and it means that what you pay for prescription medication is capped at €100 per month . On each IVF cycle the drugs are on one prescription so the couple ( if on the DPS scheme ) only pay the €100 for the drugs .

The proposed cut backs will cover 3 full IVF runs . You could have 3 succesfull runs or three failed attempts , you will be rejected from the scheme regardless . The HSE are saying this is not for cost measure but for safety reasons , they claim a woman is more susceptible to OHSS after 3 IVF cycles . AFAIK this is not the case , the risk does not increase with each cycle . Success rates for IVF are generally between 25-35% depending on different factors .



I have to say I vehemently disagree with anyone already having a child being given IVF.

This is meant to help with infertility, if you have a child then it has helped.

If you want another child, or you want one with a different partner then it is bordering on the selfish. Again.


I'm a male , father of one , who is now infertile after an accident . My wife and I are presently undergoing our first round of ICSI ( fancy IVF ) . Our entire life savings are now going to be used in the hope that we can have a second child and our son can have a sibling . I'll pay the cost of IVF but I'd rather not be excluded from a scheme that's open to every Irish citizen .

I don't think that's selfish but people are entitled to their opinion I suppose , however igrorant those opinions may be .

rhyolite

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This is an incredibly ill-informed view. Failure-to-conceive is a medical condition, an enormous source of stress and a significant compromise to mental health. It is appropriate that this condition be funded through the public health services, although with scientifically imposed limits.

i'm sorry that you can't do something you'd like to do, but at what stage has this become my problem?

i will never be able to run a sub-10 seconds 100 meters, doesn't matter how hard or smart i train, i'll never be able to do it because of the way my DNA has built my body. lots other people can, so its a natural phenomena that i just can't emulate - so is it societies problem, or just something i've got to put up with?

you don't have a right to have children, or indeed to fullfill any other goal you set yourself.

you have no more right to demand that others pay for IVF than you have to demand that others pay for a 'life-changing' trip to Australia - or indeed that others 'donate' sperm, or eggs, or embryos or even a full surrogate pregnancy.

that you have chosen to make having children such an important part of your life is not society's problem, its very sad that you can't, and i can barely imagine the distress of seeing that bastard pink line every. single. month, but the only reason that you find life so difficult without them is the importance you have placed on having them.

so no, funding very expensive procedures purely to satisfy your personal ambitions (and thats what there are) is not what collective health services are about.

hallelujajordan

ceannair06 wrote: »

Genuine question:

Do you not think that women using IVF to have babies after menopause are doing your cause a disservice ?

Yes, I do . . more reason for this to be a regulated public health service instead of a private service available to those who can most afford it, regardless of their age and circumstances.

I don't agree with IVF being allowed free to everyone, but I can see why some women might want to have a child.

I just don't see why fostering and adoption or even surrogacy aren't investigated.

Sorry, but this is incredibly naive. There are those who talk as if there are 00's of orphan babies in Ireland hat nobody is willing to adopt. The reality is very different. It is almost impossible to adopt in Ireland. Foreign adoption takes a very long time, is massively expensive and has huge ethical questions.

i'm sorry that you can't do something you'd like to do, but at what stage has this become my problem?

i will never be able to run a sub-10 seconds 100 meters, doesn't matter how hard or smart i train, i'll never be able to do it because of the way my DNA has built my body. lots other people can, so its a natural phenomena that i just can't emulate - so is it societies problem, or just something i've got to put up with?

I am so fundamentally opposed to your thinking that to debate it is, I think a waste of time. I find it remarkable that you can draw an analogy between fertility and the ability to run a sub 10 second 100m. . Let me give you what I think is a more appropriate analogy. Say you were born without the ability to walk, but an operation could restore that ability, would you argue that the public health service should not pay for the operation just because you chose to walk ? If you develop cataracts, should we not pay for your treatment just because you chose to see.

The right to conceive is as fundamental as the right to walk, see, breathe, think and it is appropriate that a public health service fund it.

you don't have a right to have children,

Actually, according to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16), you do.

nesf

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Say you were born without the ability to walk, but an operation could restore that ability, would you argue that the public health service should not pay for the operation just because you chose to walk ? If you develop cataracts, should we not pay for your treatment just because you chose to see.

Please don't tell me you consider being infertile on a similar level to not being able to walk..

Ludo

nesf wrote: »

Please don't tell me you consider being infertile on a similar level to not being able to walk..

It is certainly a more appropriate analogy that than the other poster was making.

rhyolite

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Actually, according to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16), you do.

being the legal genius that you are, you'll know that UNDHR (A16i) gives you the right to found a family. it very definately does not say you have a right to have children, and it absolutely certainly doesn't say that any other person or state needs to help you do it.

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

if the declaration said what you want it to say, you'd be aware that all the people who had refused to have sex with you, or had refused to provide you with sperm in any other way (and had therefore deprived you of your 'right' to have children), would be guilty (legally) of depriving you of your rights under A16i). it would also mean that the menopause was illegal

looking forward to that test case....

hallelujajordan

rhyolite wrote: »

being the legal genius that you are, you'll know that UNDHR (A16i) gives you the right to found a family. it very definately does not say you have a right to have children, and it absolutely certainly doesn't say that any other person or state needs to help you do it.

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

if the declaration said what you want it to say, you'd be aware that all the people who had refused to have sex with you, or had refused to provide you with sperm in any other way (and had therefore deprived you of your 'right' to have children), would be guilty (legally) of depriving you of your rights under A16i). it would also mean that the menopause was illegal

looking forward to that test case....

Gimme a break . .! I was responding to the assertion that no-one has the right to have children. The declaration says that everyone has the right to "marry and found a family", which I read as "marry and have children" . . The point I was trying to make is that the right to have children is somewhat different to the write to run a sub 10 second 100m if you so choose.

Lets not make the debate a ridiculous one.

oh well , okay

How about if I decide to take up golf only to realise I can't swing the club fully as I've damaged a tendon at some point . I obviously don't need to golf and why should the taxpayer foot the bill to fix my tendon ? but the health service would cover it and thousands of similar trivial examples and so they should .

Anyway it doesn't really matter what the best analogy is . I think what matters is whether you consider infertility a medical condition or not ? If it's considered a medical condition than surely a person is entitled to have it treated . If you consider it to be someone else's problem (why should you pay) then isn't that true of all medial conditions .

But the fact is that the health service doesn't cover one penny of the cost of IVF . What it does do is allow these couples onto the Drug Payment Scheme , and why shouldn't they be allowed on it ? every one else is .

Can anybody show a group on the DPS where their eligibility is capped after a certain period ? I don't know the answer , I'm genuinely interested .

hallelujajordan

nesf wrote: »

Please don't tell me you consider being infertile on a similar level to not being able to walk..

Actually, yes I do . . The ability to bear children is as natural and fundamental a human function as the ability to walk / see / hear / think and one just as worthy of publicly-funded medical treatment.

nesf

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Actually, yes I do . . The ability to bear children is as natural and fundamental a human function as the ability to walk / see / hear / think and one just as worthy of publicly-funded medical treatment.

As someone who in their extended family has both, let me assure you that the inability to bear children is far less damaging to a person's quality of life than the inability to walk. In fact, I think you're trivialising a very serious disability with your comparison. Actually, that you consider infertility on a level with blindness, deafness and mental illness indicates that you know little to nothing of the effect these have on the sufferer's lives.

nesf

Ludo wrote: »

It is certainly a more appropriate analogy that than the other poster was making.

Indeed, it's still a bad analogy though.