The world has gone mad.....

22 May 2007

Quote by louise_and_joe
Its "probably" not nice for a baby to have to withdraw from methadone but lets face it it hasent got a clue whats going on it isnt going to remember this in 5-10 years time and its very unlikely to emotionaly disturb the child in later life.

If thats the case, why doesnt everyone take drugs, smoke and drink theirselves stupid while they are pregnant rolleyes

After all the baby might not remember confused

This was my point plenty of people already do what do you suggest we steralise them all? All the worry about these poor babys withdrawing from methadone sad

but it happens all the time. My Mum smoked all the way through when she was pregnant with me and my Sister was an alcoholic whilst pregnant with my Nephew. We are both on the surface at least perfectly normal people. What the issue is here is that a body the HFEA sanctioned the treatment. I hope one of them grows up to be someone like Gandi or Mother Teresa, there are plenty of people in this world born into less than perfect situations who turn out to be great people.

Quote by louise_and_joe
Its emotionally disturbing enough to have parents that take drugs let alone having to go through it yourself as a child.

These are babys thier parents are allegedly ex herroin users on methadone. From what we went through during treatment I know that the HFEA will have established via the hospital thier GP and maybe other sources that there is not a recognised threat to any babys that are born. EVERYONE under going IVF, ICSI, IUI, Doner sperm and any I have missed in this country has to go through this procedure. It takes the equivilent of 3 full time GP's working 1 year to fill out the paper work supplied by the HFEA in relation to this. Thats just the paper work no doubt in these circumstances there would have been meetings at the hospital meetings at the HFEA meeting with the prospective parents etc etc etc before a license was given for treatment.

Quote by CarmelaDeA
It just makes me spit to know that I have to jump through all the hoops and play the game by all the rules, but others don't. I have to make the lifestyle changes, I have to wait until my 36th birthday (when the chances of conception are that much lower anyway and then only have a window of opportunity of three years) and I have to do all the other things asked of me, but others can bypass that because they live in an area whre IVF is funded by the PCT under much more lax guidelines.

Not trying to be arsey here but no one else is getting away with anything are they? Everyone in your area has to stop smoking right? then that includes all the alcoholics drug users etc etc You could in theory take up a class A drug if its allowed in your area but you must not smoke STOOPID I know but no ones getting away with anything you are all under the same set of rules.
As for waiting for your 36th birthday (I have no idea why that is) a change is round the corner maybe to your bennefit maybe not. NICE has made a recomendation that states roughly all woman under 40 with female factor infertiltiy will get free NHS treatment, 3 cycles I think. 100% sexist! it means I with male factor infertility and a wife with no problems wont get any free treatment dunno

I am glad this is likely to come in after we are all done with treatment otherwise I dunno what kind of protests I would have come up with. Ohh this has the NICE effect of bringing the goverment level with (drum roll please) EUROPE on the number of free to private treatments given in this country. Currently we lack way behind most of europe.

23 May 2007

Quote by tweeky
As for waiting for your 36th birthday (I have no idea why that is) a change is round the corner maybe to your bennefit maybe not. NICE has made a recomendation that states roughly all woman under 40 with female factor infertiltiy will get free NHS treatment, 3 cycles I think. 100% sexist! it means I with male factor infertility and a wife with no problems wont get any free treatment I am glad this is likely to come in after we are all done with treatment otherwise I dunno what kind of protests I would have come up with. Ohh this has the NICE effect of bringing the goverment level with (drum roll please) EUROPE on the number of free to private treatments given in this country. Currently we lack way behind most of europe.

I'd like to ask CarmelaDeA why she has to wait until she is 36?
Purely being nosey, sorry, its been 11/12 years since I had my last IVF and so I was just wondering confused

I did have IUI before the IVF so I started having treatment at about 24/25. My first IVF I was only about 26 :dunno:
As for your comments Tweeky, surely as a couple you are infertile. It shouldn't matter which one of you has the problem! I know I've always felt difficult that it is me that can not have children naturally when Ian can but you are a couple, it affects you both. Saying you get different treatment because of the females age is disgusting. I find that quite disturbing :?

23 May 2007

Quote by tweeky
Its "probably" not nice for a baby to have to withdraw from methadone but lets face it it hasent got a clue whats going on it isnt going to remember this in 5-10 years time and its very unlikely to emotionaly disturb the child in later life.

If thats the case, why doesnt everyone take drugs, smoke and drink theirselves stupid while they are pregnant rolleyes

After all the baby might not remember confused

This was my point plenty of people already do what do you suggest we steralise them all?
No I wouldnt suggest that :? I dont know what id suggest, im no expert. All I know is what I feel is wrong and right. Ultimately I feel that helping people who are addicted to drugs to have children is wrong, but that is just my opinion.
Louise

23 May 2007

Quote by Dawnie
[As for your comments Tweeky, surely as a couple you are infertile. It shouldn't matter which one of you has the problem! I know I've always felt difficult that it is me that can not have children naturally when Ian can but you are a couple, it affects you both. Saying you get different treatment because of the females age is disgusting. I find that quite disturbing

Hold fire on this one for a moment its a while since I looked at the NICE guidelines and looks like they may have been reviewed as I just had a quick look. The wording now seems to say couples a lot more than Woman as it did before. Will read them in detail at another time the full file is PDF and I dont have acrobat on this PC, maybe in work tommorow.
Louise :thumbup: biggrin

23 May 2007

Quote by Dawnie

As for waiting for your 36th birthday (I have no idea why that is) a change is round the corner maybe to your bennefit maybe not. NICE has made a recomendation that states roughly all woman under 40 with female factor infertiltiy will get free NHS treatment, 3 cycles I think. 100% sexist! it means I with male factor infertility and a wife with no problems wont get any free treatment I am glad this is likely to come in after we are all done with treatment otherwise I dunno what kind of protests I would have come up with. Ohh this has the NICE effect of bringing the goverment level with (drum roll please) EUROPE on the number of free to private treatments given in this country. Currently we lack way behind most of europe.

I'd like to ask CarmelaDeA why she has to wait until she is 36?
Purely being nosey, sorry, its been 11/12 years since I had my last IVF and so I was just wondering confused

I did have IUI before the IVF so I started having treatment at about 24/25. My first IVF I was only about 26 :dunno:
As for your comments Tweeky, surely as a couple you are infertile. It shouldn't matter which one of you has the problem! I know I've always felt difficult that it is me that can not have children naturally when Ian can but you are a couple, it affects you both. Saying you get different treatment because of the females age is disgusting. I find that quite disturbing :?
The local PCT has looked at the part of the NICE guidelines that says anyone between the ages of 23 and 39 can be offered up to 3 cycles of IVF funded by the PCT and decided that it would only be offered to those between the ages of 36 and 39.
Let's face it. Most people would have given up or gone private by that point because that's when fertility takes a bit of a dip in IVF terms. If you stick it out till you hit the age barrier The PCT can then say that a person is too fat, smokes/didn't give up in time, has some other condition that will preclude them getting IVF or the chances are not good enough for a viable pregnancy, so they don't have to spend the money...
Me? Cynical? Surely not...

23 May 2007

Quote by CarmelaDeA

As for waiting for your 36th birthday (I have no idea why that is) a change is round the corner maybe to your bennefit maybe not. NICE has made a recomendation that states roughly all woman under 40 with female factor infertiltiy will get free NHS treatment, 3 cycles I think. 100% sexist! it means I with male factor infertility and a wife with no problems wont get any free treatment I am glad this is likely to come in after we are all done with treatment otherwise I dunno what kind of protests I would have come up with. Ohh this has the NICE effect of bringing the goverment level with (drum roll please) EUROPE on the number of free to private treatments given in this country. Currently we lack way behind most of europe.

I'd like to ask CarmelaDeA why she has to wait until she is 36?
Purely being nosey, sorry, its been 11/12 years since I had my last IVF and so I was just wondering confused

I did have IUI before the IVF so I started having treatment at about 24/25. My first IVF I was only about 26 :dunno:
As for your comments Tweeky, surely as a couple you are infertile. It shouldn't matter which one of you has the problem! I know I've always felt difficult that it is me that can not have children naturally when Ian can but you are a couple, it affects you both. Saying you get different treatment because of the females age is disgusting. I find that quite disturbing :?
The local PCT has looked at the part of the NICE guidelines that says anyone between the ages of 23 and 39 can be offered up to 3 cycles of IVF funded by the PCT and decided that it would only be offered to those between the ages of 36 and 39.
Let's face it. Most people would have given up or gone private by that point because that's when fertility takes a bit of a dip in IVF terms. If you stick it out till you hit the age barrier The PCT can then say that a person is too fat, smokes/didn't give up in time, has some other condition that will preclude them getting IVF or the chances are not good enough for a viable pregnancy, so they don't have to spend the money...
Me? Cynical? Surely not...
Very odd. As we have all said these are still just guidelines they are not in anyway officaly supposed to be used yet. I dont know what you have to do or be to qualify for free treatment here in my area all I know is I was told from day 1 I would not get it. Currently the NHS provides 1 in 10 treatment cycles performed in the country. The original idea of the NICE guidleines sexist or not lol

was to bring the NHS number up to between 4-6 cycles out of 10 of treatment provided.

24 May 2007

While I have to agree that giving this couple IVF treatment might not have been the right choice they did, so lets hope they end up being wonderful parents, but to be honest what would have been hard for them is now going to be 10 times worse due to the publicity of it all, and if this threads anything to go by then they won't even be able to take these babies a walk in the park and people will be sneering at them and pointing fingers behind there backs, the bottom line is there’s nothing in place to stop methadone users conceiving naturally, so with that token why should they be refused IVF? Or should addicts be sterilised like someone mentioned earlier but was laughed of? Harsh i know but if the majority thinks giving this couple IVF was so wrong, then surely others in these same circumstances who don’t need help to conceive, shouldn't be allowed to conceive naturally? After all, the child/children involved/born will surely endure the same affects? I just think its strange the amount of fuss this has kicked up especially with it being in isolated case and yet thousands of children are born each year to addicts/recovering addicts, If its as bad as some are making out then why isn’t something done about it? Because surely if its ok to conceive naturally when addicted to certain substances then why does it suddenly become not ok to receive treatment to help someone who can’t, this surely has to be looked at.

24 May 2007

the whole issue of who should be HELPED to conceive is completely different from who should be ALLOWED to conceive .
But why though? or aren't we talking whats best for the child? i see why people think its wrong but can't addicts on controlled medication make good parents? because i know theres plenty of bad parents out there thats probably never touched drugs in there life, how can anyone tell who's good or bad?

24 May 2007

Quote by flower
I think this has caused so much fuss because people can see that a choice was made by officials who looked at the situation and in my opinion came up with the wrong answer.

no! do you think the people who agoonised over this are really that bloody stupid? do you not think there are god knows how many safeguards and procedures in place explicitly designed to prevent exactly that kind of stupidity?
flower, your opinion is based on gut feeling. do you really think for one minute that a panel of professionals, a panel designed to preclude the influence of gut feeling, and forced to base their decision on OBJECTIVE criteria, and justify it against any and all criticism, made a decision based on gut feeling? no! not a chance!
people on drugs can make good parents. just as people who aren't on drugs can make the worst parents in the world, and can cause untold damage to their children.
you have to make decisions objectively, based on the evidence available, in each individual case.
to reiterate, even though i said i'd had my last word . . . rolleyes

noone is saying smackheads should be entitled to IVF carte blanche. what we are saying, or at least what i am saying, is this . . .
these parents were subject to god knows how many conditions, imposed by a team of professionals who have dealty with this kind of thing countless times, and know what they are talking about.
these parents must have met all those conditions, and done everything that was asked of them, cos if they had not, they would not be parents today!!!!!
it must have been felt that this was the best course of action for those parents, and for their child / children, even if that decision was based on an objective weighing of possible evils, and they went for the lesser of them.
we do not know what those criteria were, nor will we ever know, so we cannot make an informed judgement as to the rights or wrongs of this particular case. can we?
neil x x x ;)

24 May 2007

neither do i? confused

so do i! :? i apologise unreservedly if i gave offence? :? i only have your words to go on, and just as you can challenge mine, i'm at liberty to challenge yours, as i read them? i accept though that what you meant to say, and what i actually thought you said, can be two different things? apologies again! ;)
your understanding of this particular case is based on what evidence though? :? life experience and anecdotal evidence does not make a good basis for rational argument, cos it don't always apply does it? wouldn't support my argument any would it? hence the gut feeling thing, cos you have nothing but gut feeling to go in this case.
n x x x ;)

25 May 2007

I think that when you hear stories like the one of a woman who died after being consulted by eight doctors over 4 days you kind of loose a little faith in their judgement and procedures...again i say they made a bad call on the IVF treatment for this couple.

25 May 2007

Know its not he same subject, but illistrates the point.

no! do you think the people who agoonised over this are really that bloody stupid? do you not think there are god knows how many safeguards and procedures in place explicitly designed to prevent exactly that kind of stupidity?

Sorry Neil, if "experts" were that clever we would not be in Iraq. If instead we had listened to 1,000,000 or more people with "gut feeling" we would not be in Iraq.
Sometimes "gut feeling" is best.
John & Shel

25 May 2007

:censored:

25 May 2007

Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Know its not he same subject, but illistrates the point.
no! do you think the people who agoonised over this are really that bloody stupid? do you not think there are god knows how many safeguards and procedures in place explicitly designed to prevent exactly that kind of stupidity?

Sorry Neil, if "experts" were that clever we would not be in Iraq. If instead we had listened to 1,000,000 or more people with "gut feeling" we would not be in Iraq.
Sometimes "gut feeling" is best.
John & Shel
i'd honestly go for "gut feeling" any day and what some "so called" experts say!

25 May 2007

Quote by neilinleeds
flower, your opinion is based on gut feeling. do you really think for one minute that a panel of professionals, a panel designed to preclude the influence of gut feeling, and forced to base their decision on OBJECTIVE criteria, and justify it against any and all criticism, made a decision based on gut feeling? no! not a chance!

Why not?

The 8 GP's who let the woman die from blood poisoning over a bank holiday wekend did confused

Edit - damn that Mr Powers !!!!!!!

25 May 2007

Quote by neilinleeds
...people on drugs can make good parents...

And so can ... ermm... rapists & murderers (I can name many acclaimed murderers and rapists who where also loving parents). May be these groups will be next to get the OK for IVF :doh:

25 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
...people on drugs can make good parents...

And so can ... ermm... rapists & murderers (I can name many acclaimed murderers and rapists who where also loving parents). May be these groups will be next to get the OK for IVF :doh:
well its only fair...they have rights as well you know!

25 May 2007

Quote by Fun Scottish Couple
the whole issue of who should be HELPED to conceive is completely different from who should be ALLOWED to conceive .
...

Those who should not be allowed to conceive, just my list;
politicians
compulsive thieves
politicians
the guy who smashes up the bus stop outside work
politicians
those who break-up phone boxes
and politicians
did I mention politicians

26 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
...people on drugs can make good parents...

And so can ... ermm... rapists & murderers (I can name many acclaimed murderers and rapists who where also loving parents). May be these groups will be next to get the OK for IVF :doh:
But rapists and murderers hurt people. If you removed the illegal status of drug use and sold it in shops or gave it a cost on the NHS then drug users wouldent even be criminals and they wouldent need to fund a habbit. Its no different to alcohol just look at what happened with prohibition, organised crime on the largest scale. Same would happen today if alcohol was banned and classed as grade B :shock: that would be so funny to watch. From personnal experience I would have to say that in comparrison to related crime and addiction then alcohol definately belongs on the illegal drugs list when using the illegal drugs list as a guide. Personaly I think the illegal drugs list is pile of crap.

27 May 2007

Quote by tweeky
...people on drugs can make good parents...

And so can ... ermm... rapists & murderers (I can name many acclaimed murderers and rapists who where also loving parents). May be these groups will be next to get the OK for IVF :doh:
But rapists and murderers hurt people.
But drug users can hurt people too,they can even destroy whole families if they try hard enough!

28 May 2007

Quote by Mr-Powers
...people on drugs can make good parents...

And so can ... ermm... rapists & murderers (I can name many acclaimed murderers and rapists who where also loving parents). May be these groups will be next to get the OK for IVF :doh:
But rapists and murderers hurt people.
But drug users can hurt people too,they can even destroy whole families if they try hard enough!
As can alcoholics, the difference is what they are doing isnt illegal. If this thread was about EX alcoholics I am sure the tone would be different. The fact that its EX heroin addicts who now use methadone is key here. Methadone is a treatment as well as a substitute for heroin I think people sdue to this still see them as addicts. There is no such treatment for alcoholics, there is no synthahol as there is on the Star trek enterprise lol

You get drugs that will stop you fitting and shaking but no substitute as it were. Alcohol causes far more expense on tax and police time than all of the banned drugs put together. Alcoholics are far more likely to relapse than any grade A drug user. So if we are a sane society we have to put Alchol drinkers and alcoholics into the same bracket as a class A drug user. Is someone who drinks 8 pints any more of a liability to themselves and others compared to someone who has just done 8 lines of heroin? or methadone? Trust me I have seen both and I know who I would rather walk home with taking into account my own safety.

29 May 2007

Quote by tweeky
...people on drugs can make good parents...

And so can ... ermm... rapists & murderers (I can name many acclaimed murderers and rapists who where also loving parents). May be these groups will be next to get the OK for IVF :doh:
But rapists and murderers hurt people.
But drug users can hurt people too,they can even destroy whole families if they try hard enough!
As can alcoholics, ...
And I do believe (or trust) alcoholics would be refused IVF - so your point is?
Was your point that although alcoholics are not ideal role models for society, can have numerous health and behavioural issues and are also not suitable candidates for IVF... when they take their very first drink they are not committing any crime. Where as a class A drug user knowingly is?
Yes, the only difference is the legality – people who seek to buy heroin know it is illegal and they had to do a damn sight more than go to a supermarket to get it!
Methadone is no longer generally considered a treatment for heroin addiction (due to it having just as many problems and being an addiction in it's own right) it is an opiate substitute – ‘substitute’ being the key word – not ‘treatment’). It does nothing to treat the person; it treats the social affects of heroin - crime.
And let's also be clear... many heroin users who want to get clean don't go on to methadone schemes as the synthetic opiate says in the body longer than the heroin does - making it harder to get off of it.
At a Nottingham community based methadone clinic (treating 60+ addicts per day - and yes they are methadone addicts - even the PCT refers to them as addicts not patients) the largest proportion of methadone users just want to get off of heroin because:
a - they have nothing left to sell to get a fix
b - they don't want to go robbing anymore
c - the court gave them the option and it kept them out of prison
Ever person that attends this clinic has to be supervised taking the methadone - mainly because they can't be trusted not to sell it on the street then come back an hour later and say they dropped the bottle.
If you want to walk home with a few of these people then it can be arranged - just don't let on you have any money on you! And before you jump in with “how can I make such an assumption”… I know how many of the team who work their have been assaulted, mugged, harassed into handing over money… and so on.

29 May 2007

Its great to see how all these addicts are all tarred with the same brush, there's loads of people out there that are or have been addicts and haven't had to resort to crime to fund their habbit, i'll even go as far as saying a lot of these so called people are highly succesful and have great jobs, what people seem to forget is most of these people are victims of our society and at the end of the day if these drugs were'nt available on our streets there surely wouldn't be a problem, as for the argument of alchohol v's heroin then it solely depends whether you regard life more important than possesions.

29 May 2007

:fuckinghell: :confused: loon

:censored:

29 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
:fuckinghell: :confused: :censored:

Fancy a shag?

29 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
:fuckinghell: :confused: :censored:

Fancy a shag?
Theres no point in resisting any longer.. You make my brain orgasm regular as it is lol.... kiss

I'll get my coat on xxx :P hump

Mike xx

29 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
:fuckinghell: :confused: :censored:

Fancy a shag?
Theres no point in resisting any longer.. You make my brain orgasm regular as it is lol.... kiss

I'll get my coat on xxx :P hump

Mike xx
Okie dokie - afterall a stranger is just someone you haven't shagged yet wink

29 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
:fuckinghell: :confused: :censored:

Fancy a shag?
Theres no point in resisting any longer.. You make my brain orgasm regular as it is lol.... kiss

I'll get my coat on xxx :P hump

Mike xx
Okie dokie - afterall a stranger is just someone you haven't shagged yet wink

And nice things happen to nice people...
Prepare to be pampered... :wink:

29 May 2007

Quote by mdr2000
:fuckinghell: :confused: :censored:

Fancy a shag?
Theres no point in resisting any longer.. You make my brain orgasm regular as it is lol.... kiss

I'll get my coat on xxx :P hump

Mike xx
Okie dokie - afterall a stranger is just someone you haven't shagged yet wink

And nice things happen to nice people...
Prepare to be pampered... :wink:

And dirty things happen to dirty people - prepare to get down and dirty 69position

:hump:

:hump: :69: :hump: blast

29 May 2007

Quote by PoloLady
:fuckinghell: :confused: :censored:

Fancy a shag?
Theres no point in resisting any longer.. You make my brain orgasm regular as it is lol.... kiss

I'll get my coat on xxx :P hump

Mike xx
And nice things happen to nice people...
Prepare to be pampered... wink

Okie dokie - afterall a stranger is just someone you haven't shagged yet :wink:
And dirty things happen to dirty people - prepare to get down and dirty 69position

:hump:

:hump: :69: :hump: blast

No need to flatter now girl.... you've pulled!
:hump: passionkiss

:hump:

:hump: :sleeping:
Well.... I'm only a man xx