Petition against ivf meds cutbacks on dps card

nesf

I'm going to echo embee's warning on this, abusing other posters because their posts offends you is not allowed on here. This is a very emotive topic and one that is prone to strong feelings on all sides, I would plead with people to try their best to rein in their emotions on this one and not to attack other posters, no matter how much their post offends you.

bruce wayne

seangal wrote: »

It is a joke that a working couple will have to pay up to €8000 euro to try to have a child when somebody on the dole can get it almost free

nobody on the dole can get it almost free...the cost of the proceedure costs the same for everyone (i.e. it is NOT covered by the medical card and costs between 4 and 5K)...its the drugs that are part of the DPS system and thats for everyone...employed and unemployed. Every person in this country is entitled to the DPS scheme, reguardless of their condition...no one pays more than €100 per month on medication. As a previous poster mentioned this covers everything from Aspirin to Viargra.

Suddenly singling out IVF as an easy target to cut back on is unfair, there are a million other places where cuts should be made, but these could take more time to impliment, and as we all know our government are incapable of thinking in the long term.

seangal

Bruce
We have had fertility treatment and thank god it worked
But I remember there was a price list up in the clinic (Galway) and there was massive reduction for people on medical cards
Also remember that they have also done away with the high rate of tax rebate so you can now just claim at 21%
Dose anybody know when this came in to effect and dose it mean that it is 3 cycles from the date the changes were made or will previous cycles be take in to account

bruce wayne

In the Hari the cost for IVF/ICSI is €4700 and in Sims its between €4300 and €4600, neither have a discount for medical card holders. No one seems to know the specifics of when this came into effect, according to Hari the final details have yet to be worked out including whether or not it is to be retrospective or not...

seangal

galway dose have discount
For IUI it is 30% off for medical card and 30% off for ivf

bruce wayne

interesting

hallelujajordan

seangal wrote: »

galway dose have discount
For IUI it is 30% off for medical card and 30% off for ivf

Any discounts offered are offered directly by the hospitals and paid for within their own budget (or rather, subsidised by those who pay full price) . The Rotunda in Dublin also offer free IVF to medical card holders. But the government/taxpayer do not suffer the cost of this.

unregistered wrote:

IVF is a luxury. You want kids, you pay for them from pre-cradle to grave..

No you dont, the state pays a huge amount for your kids medical care from birth through to adulthood, however they are conceived and so it should!

An Ri rua

Strange, this is a PETITION (although its clearly a discussion as well) and yet a moderator closed a petition I started last June out of either pettiness or correct legalese.

Thaedydal and Tallaght01, is there an issue with someone using the word petition in their title? Or was my moderator a Bertie supporter

See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055590840

Go figure.

Nevyn

An Ri rua if you have an issue with something that happened in the poltics forum take it up with the mods of that forum.

nesf

An Ri rua wrote: »

Strange, this is a PETITION (although its clearly a discussion as well) and yet a moderator closed a petition I started last June out of either pettiness or correct legalese.

Thaedydal and Tallaght01, is there an issue with someone using the word petition in their title? Or was my moderator a Bertie supporter

See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055590840

Go figure.

Politics rules are different to Parenting rules. Tallaght01 is also not a moderator in this forum!

For the record petitions are not allowed on Politics because well, if we did allow them the place would be flooded with them. If you really want to link to it, put a link in your signature, that is allowed.

LegacyUser

Hi, I've just signed your petition and I hope many more people do.
I'm hoping this issue doesn't get through in the next budget.

People who undergo ivf do so due to medical issues, all people deserve to be treated for their health issue regardless of what they are.
Excluding one group of people due to the fact their medical problems are within their reproductive organs is highly offensive.

A number of years ago people who were unfortunate enough to have mental health issues were treated with the same disrespect, services have (somewhat ) improved in that area.

I believe in a certain number of years, hopefully not too far down the line, the irish government and people will look back with shame as to how they discriminated against one section of their population with specific health issues.

I just want my medical problems treated as anyone else would want theirs treated.
Its wrong that I feel as though no one considers me worth helping.

ash23

How much would 3 rounds of IVF drugs cost the government? I'd like to know a rough figure before making a call on this.

For eg, if it's a few hundred then I see no need to cap it.
If it's a few grand then I can see a need.

The_Conductor

ash23 wrote: »

How much would 3 rounds of IVF drugs cost the government? I'd like to know a rough figure before making a call on this.

For eg, if it's a few hundred then I see no need to cap it.
If it's a few grand then I can see a need.

Actual drug cost can vary significantly, depending on the drugs being advocated/prescribed and how sensetive any given person is to them (normally age is the big determining factor here)- but typically can be anything from 20% to 80% of the total cost of the IVF treatment (from a lower base of perhaps EUR720 up to EUR3,500-4000 per cycle, depending on the person and how intensive a regime is deemed necessary).

The_Conductor

These tables give a good indication of what global costs might be (2008 figures, but pretty accurate):

http://www.ivfcost.net/ivf-cost/a-comparison-of-the-ivf-cost-worldwide

ash23

Thanks for that.

Imo then 3 rounds is enough. It's not as though the government are refusing to bear any costs at all and 3 attempts seems like a fair go.

I can't imagine suffering infertility and it must be difficult. But I see every single day how poor services are for children in this country. Our schools are overcrowded, our hospitals are constantly needing additional support...my own child waited over a year for speech therapy.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Age for example. Number of existing children. Health of parents. And yes, number of attempts.

cjhellsea

Having read all off the above posts i find it quite distressing to read such harsh feelings towards couples who seek funding towards ivf treatment. I am having to come to the realization of my life without children. My husband has cystic fibrios which prevents us from having children the natural way so we had to go down the long and winding road of an ivf treatment which was negative and extremely distressing as half way through my cycle i had to stop treatment due to the lack of ''eggs'' produced by the hormone injections. That is a day i will never forget. I don't think that it is fair for all these peolpe who have no idea what we go through to be so judgemental about ivf funding. As well as living with the fact that myself and my husbnd can't have children i also have to live with the fact that the man i love has cf. So while trying to live a normal life and deal with the fact of us quite possibly never owing our own home due to the fact my husband is too much of a risk factor for life insurance. We have to live with this longing for the rest of our lives and it is one of the hardest things that i am ever going to have to do.

byhookorbycrook

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, but it's the only example that I am aware of where limits have been applied to the Drug Payment Scheme for a particular set of medications, which sets infertility aside as a condition somewhat less worthy of publicly funded treatment and I think that is wrong.

The MS drug Tysabri is not covered for public patients.

The_Conductor

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

The MS drug Tysabri is not covered for public patients.

It treats other conditions too- such as Crohn's Disease. I was almost in tears when I heard it wasn't covered- esp. as my consultant told me I may as well be drinking water as taking my current medication....... I just have to accept it.

metrovelvet

cjhellsea wrote: »

Having read all off the above posts i find it quite distressing to read such harsh feelings towards couples who seek funding towards ivf treatment. I am having to come to the realization of my life without children. My husband has cystic fibrios which prevents us from having children the natural way so we had to go down the long and winding road of an ivf treatment which was negative and extremely distressing as half way through my cycle i had to stop treatment due to the lack of ''eggs'' produced by the hormone injections. That is a day i will never forget. I don't think that it is fair for all these peolpe who have no idea what we go through to be so judgemental about ivf funding. As well as living with the fact that myself and my husbnd can't have children i also have to live with the fact that the man i love has cf. So while trying to live a normal life and deal with the fact of us quite possibly never owing our own home due to the fact my husband is too much of a risk factor for life insurance. We have to live with this longing for the rest of our lives and it is one of the hardest things that i am ever going to have to do.

Consider this. Having a child that needs treatment that you cant get here because the system is a mess. Money is being wasted and not enough to go around.

The_Conductor

metrovelvet wrote: »

Consider this. Having a child that needs treatment that you cant get here because the system is a mess. Money is being wasted and not enough to go around.

It really is a simple case of prioritising resources, and I for one, am glad I am not playing god by choosing what gets prioritised and what does not. We are cutting another 280m from the drugs bill in December (and possibly as much as 1.1 billion from the HSE budget)- so it really is the case that people have to look at the bigger picture. Does a sick child get his/her medication- or does a childless couple get a shot at IVF medications? Personally I'd prioritise the sick child in a heartbeat.......

metrovelvet

smccarrick wrote: »

It really is a simple case of prioritising resources, and I for one, am glad I am not playing god by choosing what gets prioritised and what does not. We are cutting another 280m from the drugs bill in December (and possibly as much as 1.1 billion from the HSE budget)- so it really is the case that people have to look at the bigger picture. Does a sick child get his/her medication- or does a childless couple get a shot at IVF medications? Personally I'd prioritise the sick child in a heartbeat.......

That would be a tragic irony. Getting treatment for IVF but not for the child you conceived through the ivf.

nesf

smccarrick wrote: »

Does a sick child get his/her medication- or does a childless couple get a shot at IVF medications? Personally I'd prioritise the sick child in a heartbeat.......

It's even harsher than that, money spent on IVF facilities is money not spent on beds and nurses and doctors that could be treating elderly patients forced to lie on trolleys in the A&E department.

You couldn't pay me enough to make me make those kinds of calls.

simu

smccarrick wrote: »

Does a sick child get his/her medication- or does a childless couple get a shot at IVF medications? Personally I'd prioritise the sick child in a heartbeat.......

I'd agree but I'd also look at reducing salaries and spending on PR, glossy brochures and such before denying people ivf.

Penny Dreadful

simu wrote: »

I'd agree but I'd also look at reducing salaries and spending on PR, glossy brochures and such before denying people ivf.

Once again its not that clear cut though. By cutting the salary of the doctors and nurse (who IMHO are underpaid for the work they do) and other hands on health care workers, you are further devaluing their job in society.
I am hoping very much to have a family but as I am 33 now I am aware that this may not be as easy as it would have been 10 years ago, I am aware that I may need to examine options such as IVF and that it may never happen for me and that would be heartbreaking. However, that said, I do not think that helping couples with fertility difficulties trumps or is as important as helping people who are seeking treatment for cancer, MS, COPD, rheumatoid arthritis, CF, .............the list goes on and on.
If (and I am very glad that I do not have to make this decision) I had to opt to cut funding from particular areas of the health service I would cut from IVF, cosmetic surgeries available on the medical card etc and I would be far more stringent on who qualifies for the medical card in the first place.

The_Conductor

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Once again its not that clear cut though. By cutting the salary of the doctors and nurse (who IMHO are underpaid for the work they do) and other hands on health care workers, you are further devaluing their job in society.

The fact of the matter is we are churning out far more nurses than we need, alongside far too few doctors. Its a disgrace that we had to seek an exemption from the Working Time Directive, so as to allow junior doctors continue working 100+ hours a week.......

We do not need as many nurses as we have, and we do need more doctors. We cannot afford to be sentimental about attaching a social/societal price on being a doctor or a nurse- we need to look at things with a cold calculating minds. We need to incentivise colleges to produce more doctors and less nurses. We need to forget about the culture of junior doctors doing 120 hours a week with the carrot of a consultants position 10-15 years down the road. Who cares about 'devaluing people's jobs in society'- this is a wishy washy way of refusing to acknowledge our changed circumstances.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

I am hoping very much to have a family but as I am 33 now I am aware that this may not be as easy as it would have been 10 years ago, I am aware that I may need to examine options such as IVF and that it may never happen for me and that would be heartbreaking.

Penny- 33 isn't old. My wife had our first child at 36 (and after chemotherapy etc) this year, and is now expecting our second at 37. Certainly it would be preferable to have children earlier- they are exhausting and we have much more energy in our 20s- but unless there is a history of significantly early menopause, or a history of prolonged use of oral conceptives, conception in your early 30s should not normally be an issue.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

However, that said, I do not think that helping couples with fertility difficulties trumps or is as important as helping people who are seeking treatment for cancer, MS, COPD, rheumatoid arthritis, CF, .............the list goes on and on.

The current issue- is we are chopping services for the list of illnesses, diseases and conditions you've listed, along with many others. Simultaneously- many people who put off having children during the boom years, and now find themselves either out of work or with significantly more time on their hands than previously, are deciding that it is a good time to have children. These people are often finding this difficult (a significant number of 40+ first time mothers are presenting in all our maternity hospitals for example).

We need to prioritise- and while I sympathise with all those people who are childless and would love to have children, I am secretly relieved that I do not have to play god deciding on who is covered for what........ We are all going to find the going tough for the foreseeable future- far tougher than most people appreciate, things that are seen as a right now, could well be an unaffordable luxury in the future. Dedicated CF facilities- in an ideal world we need it. Can we do without? Probably. Can we compromise and allow other immunocompromised patients share these facilities- not without world war errupting. What is likely to happen- they don't get built at all........ Notice a trend? We can't pander to every special interest group- irrespective of the merit of their case- its harder to take something off someone who has something than it is to not supply it to them in the first place. Its also difficult to get diverse groups to sit down and come up with common positions- as everyone wants to fight their own corners. We can make compromises- if we toss the Me Fein attitudes that pervade Irish society. Will we though? Somehow, I doubt it.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

If (and I am very glad that I do not have to make this decision) I had to opt to cut funding from particular areas of the health service I would cut from IVF, cosmetic surgeries available on the medical card etc and I would be far more stringent on who qualifies for the medical card in the first place.

It really is the case that whoever shouts the loudest gets heard. Look how the government rolled over to the pensioners on the medical card thing (even if they are now introducing means testing for the over 70s). Cosmetic surgery is an obvious thing to cut- but tell that to the child seriously burnt in a bonfire or someone with horrific scars from an accident. Even cosmetic surgery should be assessed on a case by case basis. I'm just glad I'm not playing god with any of these folk.

Penny Dreadful

smccarrick wrote: »

The fact of the matter is we are churning out far more nurses than we need, alongside far too few doctors. Its a disgrace that we had to seek an exemption from the Working Time Directive, so as to allow junior doctors continue working 100+ hours a week.......

We do not need as many nurses as we have, and we do need more doctors. We cannot afford to be sentimental about attaching a social/societal price on being a doctor or a nurse- we need to look at things with a cold calculating minds. We need to incentivise colleges to produce more doctors and less nurses. We need to forget about the culture of junior doctors doing 120 hours a week with the carrot of a consultants position 10-15 years down the road. Who cares about 'devaluing people's jobs in society'- this is a wishy washy way of refusing to acknowledge our changed circumstances.



Penny- 33 isn't old. My wife had our first child at 36 (and after chemotherapy etc) this year, and is now expecting our second at 37. Certainly it would be preferable to have children earlier- they are exhausting and we have much more energy in our 20s- but unless there is a history of significantly early menopause, or a history of prolonged use of oral conceptives, conception in your early 30s should not normally be an issue.



The current issue- is we are chopping services for the list of illnesses, diseases and conditions you've listed, along with many others. Simultaneously- many people who put off having children during the boom years, and now find themselves either out of work or with significantly more time on their hands than previously, are deciding that it is a good time to have children. These people are often finding this difficult (a significant number of 40+ first time mothers are presenting in all our maternity hospitals for example).

We need to prioritise- and while I sympathise with all those people who are childless and would love to have children, I am secretly relieved that I do not have to play god deciding on who is covered for what........ We are all going to find the going tough for the foreseeable future- far tougher than most people appreciate, things that are seen as a right now, could well be an unaffordable luxury in the future. Dedicated CF facilities- in an ideal world we need it. Can we do without? Probably. Can we compromise and allow other immunocompromised patients share these facilities- not without world war errupting. What is likely to happen- they don't get built at all........ Notice a trend? We can't pander to every special interest group- irrespective of the merit of their case- its harder to take something off someone who has something than it is to not supply it to them in the first place. Its also difficult to get diverse groups to sit down and come up with common positions- as everyone wants to fight their own corners. We can make compromises- if we toss the Me Fein attitudes that pervade Irish society. Will we though? Somehow, I doubt it.



It really is the case that whoever shouts the loudest gets heard. Look how the government rolled over to the pensioners on the medical card thing (even if they are now introducing means testing for the over 70s). Cosmetic surgery is an obvious thing to cut- but tell that to the child seriously burnt in a bonfire or someone with horrific scars from an accident. Even cosmetic surgery should be assessed on a case by case basis. I'm just glad I'm not playing god with any of these folk.

I totally disagree with the statement that there are too many nurses and not enough doctors. I work in a hospital and trust me, on the front line there are too few nurses. Nurses work in a lot of management and admin jobs and are not treating patients but are counted in the numbers.
The EWTD has had a shocking impact on the amount of NCHD applications in this country and most of the junior doctors are voting with their feet and leaving for the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Austrlia. That said, there is no earthly point in employing doctors without nurses.
Re: devaluing jobs........that matters. Why should a bank manager get paid more than a nurse or a teacher? The teacher is educating the future of the country and the nurse is healing a person. Yet because we pay one more than the other we value them in that order. Recession times don't matter to this point as I felt the same way during the boom years. As a society we have tended to value some jobs too little.

Thank you for your encouraging words re: my age and possibility of conception. My family seems to be a pretty fertile lot so fingers crossed.