For instance... if cancer drugs cost so much then should the NHS fund IVF treatment. Or is it a human right to be blessed with children
2007-03-09 04:25:32 · 6 answers · asked by Guy 2 in Health ➔ Other - Health
The NHS should fund the LIVING first not fund something for something NOT LIVING yet! If people want it soo badly they should pay for it, or wait for ages untill all the MORE IMPORTANT cases are taken care of first!!!
2007-03-09 04:28:49 · answer #1 · answered by British & Proud Of It 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
increasingly the NHS is refusing to cover IVF. There are now multiple exclusions. I have a lot of sympathy for couples desperate to have children and I probably have no concept of how bad they feel. However I agree that are not ill and I suppose therefore that they do have a lesser priority.
On the other side I believe that governments, especially the current one, waste countless billions each year on total rubbish that benefits no one!
2007-03-09 20:14:16 · answer #2 · answered by Dr Frank 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry for those who cant have children but I don't agree with IVF especially not over the lives of people who already exist.
There are so many children in this world already who would benefit from having a loving parent, why not adopt them instead of bringing more kids into the world. Or is it just the need to have a miniature copy of themselves that is their main concern .
If it was a human right to have kids then medical intervention would not be needed in the first place.
2007-03-10 14:39:37 · answer #3 · answered by bluegirl 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I fully understand what u are saying but as a person,meaning myself,who can't have children not through eny fault of my own,yes i did have an opp on NHS..The people who treated me are trained in that department,that is their side of thing's in the medical profession,people who treat other disease's are trained in their side of the profession,it is very upsetting when all u want is a child,then u get women who have kids like rabbits & can't even look after them propaly,the argument could go on & on,so i can't realy answer ur question because i don't know which one to say,,well I had a opp but then again i've lost 2 members of my family to cancer
2007-03-09 12:41:32 · answer #4 · answered by kimble 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! Cancer should be cured above everything else, Im sorry but there is more to life than children and there are so many kids out there without parents why dont they adopt!
Personally I feel we should start looking after the children we already have in this world rather than trying to bring more into it!
Why are we never happy with what we already have? Cancer sufferers deserve to be treated as best as possible!
2007-03-09 12:29:38 · answer #5 · answered by kirsty m 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One has nothing to do with the other.
It is possible to treat all illnesses without leaving any out.
2007-03-09 12:29:30 · answer #6 · answered by Cammie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should both be treated.
This country sends far too much of tax payers money abroad.
We need to get our own house in order.
2007-03-09 12:29:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't be stupid, if your dying surely your more entitled than someone who wants kids...
2007-03-09 12:29:46 · answer #8 · answered by Lc 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋