You are not logged in.


Unread posts

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

1

Thursday, May 3rd 2007, 12:06pm

HFEA discussion groups re embryo transfer and multiple pregnancies

Hi everyone,

Just to let you know that I had a phone call from the organisers of the conference being held in Bristol regarding the possible change to policy to only allow one embryo to be transferred at a time. They have invited me along to the public discussion next Wednesday to voice my opinion. (They may live to regret it!)

If any of you want to give me questions/points of view etc to put before the HFEA during this please let me know. Either post them on here or PM me. I shall be taking a large note book! I will let you all know as soon as I do how it went and what was raised etc.

If anyone else is going to the Bristol discussion and wants to meet up before hand, just let me know.

Posts: 814

Reg: Mar 6th 2006

Location: Essex

  • Send private message

2

Thursday, May 3rd 2007, 1:10pm

Hi, well done, I would like to know if they will be putting up more attempts on the NHS, as they say it will reduce cost in other areas by putting one embryo back? but on the other hand will reduce the success rate for us?

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

3

Thursday, May 3rd 2007, 3:11pm

Thats a good point. Ideally they would duoble the number of goes the NHS will fund for each individual couple, but I can't see that happening. Lets face it, NHS provision for fertility treatment is hit and miss from area to area as it is. I shall certainly raise that point.

I'd also like to know what justification they have for possibly only putting one embryo back. I know they are saying that it's because the risks of twins are higher than those of singleton pregnancies, but are they also going to stop treating women over 38 because the risks of them carrying Downs babies are greatly increased, or women with diabetes because the risks to their babies are greater too? It just sounds like a money making cost cutting excercise to me. How come European and American specialists are still willing to put more than one embryo back? (As many as you like in some clinics in the states in particular).

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "mrs_smiff" (May 3rd 2007, 3:15pm)


Posts: 671

Reg: Jul 30th 2006

Location: London

  • Send private message

4

Thursday, May 3rd 2007, 5:11pm

Well done, good for you! I offered my services but they seem to only want people undergoing treatment.

Sorry if this is stating the obvious but you'd find it really helpful to have a good read of the consultation document before the meeting

http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/483.html

Many of our questions are discussed in there so it's good to see what they've already thought about.

Can't wait to hear about how it goes!

xx

deez

Ace

Posts: 118

Reg: Mar 30th 2007

Location: Kent

  • Send private message

5

Thursday, May 3rd 2007, 6:09pm

Mrs Smiff have no other questions than what has already been mentioned but wanted to say well done for taking part and being the voice for everyone who has fertility problems

xx

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

6

Thursday, May 3rd 2007, 9:58pm

Well in spite of already being lucky enough to concieve quickly and naturally with my 4 babies, I know how painful it is to yearn for a child. I believe all women should have the right to decide how they are treated. I think this must be the only area of medicine where the treatment revolutionised how women were able to conceive against all odds, gave countless thousands of couples hope, and then the specialists changed their minds, without offering a viable alternative. If I had the choice, in my next ICSI cycle I would gladly have 3 or more embryos replaced to give me a max chance of success, and I'm sure lots of other women feel the same. I just hope the HFEA listens to us, and revokes it's idea's on reducing the max embryo transfer to one.

Pootle

Megastar

Posts: 7,078

Reg: Mar 31st 2007

Location: By the coast

Children: 2 beautiful girls.

  • Send private message

7

Thursday, May 3rd 2007, 10:09pm

Just wanted to say well done and good luck - I really hope they listen to you.

x

Posts: 562

Reg: Feb 22nd 2007

Location: Iceland

  • Send private message

8

Friday, May 4th 2007, 3:59am

Well done Mrs Smiff, good luck with this. If you haven't read previous threads about this issue, maybe it will give you additional ideas.

Putting Our Thoughts Forward to All Cons / Dr's & HEFA

HFEA - Twin IVF births 'need to be cut'

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

9

Friday, May 4th 2007, 1:09pm

Thanks for all the links girls. It helps to read as much as possible on the subject so that I can go in armed!

Posts: 269

Reg: Oct 3rd 2005

Location: Plymouth

  • Send private message

10

Friday, May 4th 2007, 2:15pm

I find this really frustrating, what rights do they have to reduce our chances of having children - yet the NHS throws money at certain other areas - it has been proven that replacing more then 1 embryo increases the chance of a singleton pregnancy, I'm not sure of the odds for twins.

They say it's costing the NHS too much money - but WE are bloody paying for it in the first place!!!!

I think more and more of us will be going abroad for IVF where they just seem to have it right!

Thank you Mrs Smiff for doing this and speaking on our behalf xxx

JENSQUI

Megastar

Posts: 7,427

Reg: Feb 26th 2007

Location: Edinburgh

Children: one very special daughter

  • Send private message

11

Friday, May 4th 2007, 2:30pm

all of their arguments seem to be based on manipulating statistics to suit their needs. if decisions were based purely on statistics then i'm amazed they let IVF go ahead at all when, it can be argued, there's a 70+% chance of failure.....

Posts: 2,643

Reg: Feb 28th 2007

Location: Surrey

Children: Not yet

  • Send private message

12

Friday, May 4th 2007, 2:51pm

Just wanted to say well done Mrs Smiff and I go along with everyone else's suggestions.

I think if this happens everyone will just start going abroad.

I can't see the NHS offering two treatments either...I think its a way of cutting back on the spending..somehow

Posts: 709

Reg: Feb 4th 2007

Location: Wales

  • Send private message

13

Friday, May 4th 2007, 7:21pm

Just wanted to say good luck - i think its really bad that they may only put 1 embryo back in - the chance of getting pregnant will be even less then and its not like its high at the mo being around 30%. It really annoys me as im sure it does everyone going through treatment.

Posts: 195

Reg: Mar 10th 2007

Location: Manchester

  • Send private message

14

Saturday, May 5th 2007, 12:21pm

Mrs Sniff Just wanted to say thanks and well done for speaking up for us ttc ladies. It really annoys me that people can make these decisions for you it should be an individual choice. Like others have said many ladies have 2 embryos put back and end up pg with singleton so logic would say that if only one put back most of these ladies would get a negative!!! Its hard enough going through this journey and expensive enough without reducing the chances of success aswell.

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

15

Monday, May 7th 2007, 10:09am

The HFEA are saying that they want to maintain the current success rates with IVF, but reduce the number of transferred embryo's to one. I just don't see how this is tenable. Lets face it, if they could increase the success rate, why haven't they done it already?

I will be putting forward the emotional aspect of this to the panel too.

JENSQUI

Megastar

Posts: 7,427

Reg: Feb 26th 2007

Location: Edinburgh

Children: one very special daughter

  • Send private message

16

Monday, May 7th 2007, 10:19am

Are they planning to use more advanced techniques to determine which embyro to put back? I can't see any other way of only putting one back but maintaining current success rates....

Posts: 269

Reg: Oct 3rd 2005

Location: Plymouth

  • Send private message

17

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 9:15am

If this is what they want, are they then prepared for us to have more NHS cycles or at least have our drugs covered by NHS - it's hard enough for us to scrape the money together as it is but at least when we have 2 put back we are maximising our chances - if they want to reduce the embies put back then we want some compensation for this in the way of helping towards are costs as they are reducing our chances!!

Posts: 269

Reg: Oct 3rd 2005

Location: Plymouth

  • Send private message

18

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 9:16am

Bastards.... .sorry but this has really got my goat - this decision has probably been discussed by a group of individuals that have had no problems conceiving and all have their 2.4 kids sat at home in private education with our bloody IVF money!!!!!

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

19

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 9:32am

Rachie I can certainly understad your anger over this. I feel the same, and I'm pretty sure everyone on here does too. this is the point though, not one IVF 'client' I have spoken to says they would have been happy having only one embryo put back. The option is there already.......we don't HAVE to have 2 embies put back, but we all chose to. Doesn't that say something? We are all aware that having twins is higher risk to both ourselves and the babies, but we are WILLING to take that risk, such is the power of the yearning for a child. As am a mum already, our consultant told us that I am one of the mum's who would be in the high risk category for twins through iVF, simply because my uterus is already receptive to pregnancy. I will be one of those clients who will only be allowed one embie transferred, yet I am having to pay for the privilige! I had 2 embies replaced in April when we had our first ICSI treatment. It failed, but had I only had one put back, I would have been left with this burning feeling that if I had more put back it may well have worked.

Posts: 671

Reg: Jul 30th 2006

Location: London

  • Send private message

20

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 10:26am

Quoted

Originally posted by mrs_smiff
We are all aware that having twins is higher risk to both ourselves and the babies, but we are WILLING to take that risk, such is the power of the yearning for a child..


I don't mean to be contentious but I think that is their point though, as potential mothers we shouldn't be able to take risks that can effect our childrem. The child is an individual someone we have responsibility for not ownership over.

I do not support the one embryo transfer move at all - with an IVF success rate of 70% and a twin rate of 30%, the risk of losing a twin at term or having a severly disabled child is around 2 in 1000 for every cycle started. I just dont think in the grand scheme of things the risks are high enough to warrent the change in rules. That and 101 other reasons too.

I don't mean to offend anybody with this but I think its important that for us to be taken seriously and not as the mad hormonal women desperate for a child that we are so often portrayed as, we need to look at the evidence and aknowledge the rational behind the move to a one embryo transfer (which the HFEA have presented) and argue against them rationally.

just my tuppeny's worth!

Posts: 200

Reg: Apr 4th 2007

  • Send private message

21

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 10:46am

Just wondered how they can make a rule that basically means that anyone having IVF has absolutely no chance of ever conceiving twins, when if you were to fall pregnant naturally there is always a chance it could be twins.

So not only have people who need IVF lost out on the "miracle" of a natural conception, they have also lost out on the possibility of ever having twins.

Not fair!

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

22

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 12:09pm

I can see your point Suzy, but the fact is, it should be OUR decision whether we take the risks that we know are involved in having twins. When someone gets pregnant with twins naturally, nobody has the right to tell that mother that she has to undergo an embryo reduction because the risks are not allowed to be taken. What about group of women who for whatever reason have to take drugs and medication throughout pregnancy to maintain their own health, which may have an impact on the foetus? Treatments for epilepsy, diabetes, thyroid conditions etc can all have a detrimental effect on an unborn child. Are we to exclude these high risk groups from IVF treatment too?

The fact is, we all take risks when we are pregnant. whether it is having a drink, smoking, taking an aspirin etc. That doesn't mean we are purposely taking risks which will harm our unborn children. It means we are weighing up the facts, and the chances of something bad happening and making a decision based on the possible outcomes. It isn't about owning a child. We do have responsibilities to our unborn babies, but if we decided not to take risks, nobody would ever have children!

The point of all this is that our CHOICE is being taken away. the chances of problems occurring during a multiple birth with twins are still very low, even though they are increased compared to singleton births. It isn't inevitable that we will give birth prematurely, or that our twins will have cerebral pasy. Yes it does happen, and yes it is an increased risk, but the choice should still be ours.

Posts: 671

Reg: Jul 30th 2006

Location: London

  • Send private message

23

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 3:38pm

It’s a tough call and a lot down to individual opinion I think. I don’t disagree that there are risks at every corner like the instances you gave and we all weigh them up when making decisions, almost all the time the risks we face are slight and we can sensibly put them into perspective. The risks associated with twins are also slight and therefore I do not agree with the motion to move to single embryo transfers. However, I’m not entirely convinced that, if the risks were very high, that we should have the right to choose. I think the state does have a responsibility where it can to protect the child if it is in a position to do so. We have a legal responsibility to protect our children when they are born, sometimes choice is taken away from us for good reason (for instance introduction of compulsory use of infant car seats). Most of the time common sense prevails and we can make the right choices but should we be allowed to rely on our own judgement? we may consider ourselves to be responsible individuals capable of making the right choices but do we think everybody is that responsible?

I seem to have got sidetracked in a theoretical debate about our rights to free choice regarding decisions affecting our children! newshyI think it’s great that you’re going along to the meeting this week and really look forward to hearing how it goes. At the end of the day the HFEAs stance on it is reducing numbers of twin births will reduce the number of babies that die each year. I disagree with the move to single embryo transfer but their argument is a difficult one to debate against.

xx

Posts: 200

Reg: Apr 4th 2007

  • Send private message

24

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 5:44pm

Have done some more reading and I was wondering if the prospect that only one embryo would be transferred would mean that they are likely to suggest that blastocysts are transferred due to their higher chance of successful implantation?

Posts: 671

Reg: Jul 30th 2006

Location: London

  • Send private message

25

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 5:59pm

Hi pixiewish,

The problem with blasts at the moment is that very few centres in the UK have much experience with them. I think if the rules are changed more clinics will invest in learning about blast transfers so they can maintain high success rates but it will take a while for everyone to learn and perfect blastocyte culture techniques.

That said I know many centres in the US have tried blastocytes and have now gone back to doing 3 day transfers because so many embryos are lost along the way. I never had any frosties at either of my cycles (the first blastocyte, the 2nd 3dt) because so few make it to blast and my clinic only freeze blasts.

xx

Posts: 200

Reg: Apr 4th 2007

  • Send private message

26

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 6:11pm

I see, so quite unlikely then. just a thought really.

Posts: 671

Reg: Jul 30th 2006

Location: London

  • Send private message

27

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 6:18pm

I think it will happen, particularly if the one embryo thing becomes compulsary, it will just take a bit of time. Techniques are being improved all the time so hopefully they'll be able to improve the culture media to improve the survival rates of the embies...

Posts: 906

Reg: Jul 17th 2006

Location: london

  • Send private message

28

Tuesday, May 8th 2007, 6:42pm

Hi
I had posted Putting Our Thoughts Forward to All Cons / Dr's & HEFA a while ago, i think penguin has already pointed you there.

I must say that it really makes me angry!

If they were to put one emby back then i presume more IVF's would take place as they would probably be needed for child no 2. So will the cost be coming down? Isnt that the way things work? the more you do the less it costs? what will be the implication for NHS waiting lists when there may be more private ivfs that need to be done? IVF isnt cheap by a long shot - in anyother situation they it would be absurd not to maximise chances for the money paid and for others without twins thwy would only have one child as the cost would prevent them from another cycle.

We undertake treatment with risks every single day - there are risks with GA but people still opt do have their boobs done or get some minor surgery - by the same token should we stop all this due to the risks of GA? Everytime you take a pill there are a list of risks a mile long...it should be our choice, just like the million times we have had to pick before. how many of us have been ont he pill - look at the risk of blood clots and god knows what that carrys after some years - i dont see anyone jumping up and down to regulate how long a woman can take that....!

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Peppermint Patty" (May 8th 2007, 6:43pm)


mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

29

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 10:01am

Well I went along to the discussion group last night. There were 7 of us mere mortals there, and a lady from the HFEA, as well as someone from the company running the discussion.

We were asked our views on the pro's and cons of having twins from an IVF cycle, and were given some stats to comment on. I have to say that all 7 of us were in agreement that the HFEA stats come across as very misleading, and tend to be headline grabbing declarations rather than an accurate example of fact.

The main things we commented on were risks to mother and babies in multiple births and the impact of reducing the number of embryo's transferred to one. The stats which have been published show that the risk to mother and babies in a twin birth IS higher than for a singleton birth, but not massively so. For example they state that 25% of IVF births are currently twins. Looking at that figure on its own seems quite high, but if you look at it in perspective it changes. An average of 30% of IVF treatments result in success. 25% of that 30% is a multiple birth. That gives you an average of a 7.5% chance overall of having multiples from an IVF treatment. These figures do not tell you how many of those multiples are identcal twins resulting from one egg splitting. This obviously cannot be prevented as it is totally natural and unpredictable. Nevertheless, it changes the stats a bit.

The chances of twins having a condition like cerebral palsy are approximately 8 in 1000, as opposed to 2 in 1000 for singleton births. (This is a tiny risk......0.8%.) Also, cerebral palsy covers a multitude of conditions from a slight squint in the eyes and a muscle weakness to profound disability. Are we really going to consider that tiny risk as a reason to not have two embryo's transferred? (a lot of women have a much higher chance of having a baby with Downs Syndrome and accept that risk, yet the impact of Downs Sndrome on a child can be infinitely more than cerebral palsy).

The HFEA also states that multiples are more likely to need to spend time in Neonatal Intensive Care after birth than singletons. This is true, but of the numbers who do, how many just needed a couple of hours in an incubator to warm up? We don't know, because the figures do not reflect this.

Low birth weight is also another factor stated as a reason not to have multiples, but on it's own it does not indicate a problem. Many babies are born each year weighing less than 5 pounds, and have no problems at all. Prematurity is a bit of a loose phrase given that all babies born before 37 weeks are classed as premature. When you consider a twin birth is classed as full term by 38 weeks, you'd only have to have your babies a few days early for them to be premature. A baby born at 36 weeks and 6 days is still premature and goes into those statistics, but this doesn't mean that that particular baby suffered any harm becasue of it.

So we all agreed that the HFEA statistcs are a little misleading at the best if times, and manipulative at worst. The lady from the HFEA did point out though that it is very difficult to produce statistics which cover all possibilities and outcomes.

The HFEA have stated that other countries have successfully introduced songle embryo transfer without impacting their success rates. This may be true, but of those other countries we do not know which ones had much higher success rates than ours anyway. They often use different protocols for IVF than we do, and have higher success rates becasue of this. Women are often given better care and are funded for IVF treatments in these countries also.

So, the upshot is, the HFEA are NOT saying that we will only be able to have one embryo transferred. They are still in the discussion and fact finding stages, and the report will not even be presented to the board until October, so I think we can safely say no decision will be made this year.

We were given a list of 4 possibilities to discuss. They are as follows:

Option A, HFEA to work with clinics, patients and professional bodies to increase awareness of risks of multiple births and to encourage increased use of single embryo transfer.

Option B, Set a maximum twin rate of no more than 10% that each clinic must not exceed, which could be phased in over a number of years.

Option C, Develop code of practice guidelines that defines in which cases only one embryo should be replaced, based on for example, age, number of previous treatment cycles, medical history and possibly embryo quality

Option D, A combination of options B and C above, IE clinics could initially be given an overall maximum twin birth rate. If they fail to achieve it, they have singke embryo transfer criteria imposed on them by the HFEA.

All of us said option A was the only one which we would be hapy seeing implemented and that the others were too ambiguous, or gave too little choice to be an option.


I hope this has been of as much use to you as it was to me. I'm sorry this post is a bit long winded but I wanted to give as full report as possible. Please do have a look at the HFEA website as it is very informative. There is also an on line consultation where you can fill in a brief questionnaire. This will assist the HFEA to make the RIGHT decision for us.

Posts: 671

Reg: Jul 30th 2006

Location: London

  • Send private message

30

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 10:37am

Excellent, thanks Mrs Smiff, both for going and representing us and for such a detailed and thorough report. I agree option A is the only way forward. Aside from the logistical factors caused by how different clinics operate, here's no way the other options could be implemented without severely disadvanting patients.

Thanks again,

clap clap

Posts: 735

Reg: Oct 17th 2006

Location: Berkshire

  • Send private message

31

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 10:52am

Mrs. Smiff

I'd be interested in knowing whether the HFEA commented on whether they were planning to ensure IVF funding for all. All the other European countries they've cited do fund everyone.
I was told NHS couldn't fund mine because my PCT would only fund women over the age of 36.

xxx

Posts: 906

Reg: Jul 17th 2006

Location: london

  • Send private message

32

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 10:52am

Thank you loads!

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

33

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 11:41am

Funding wasn't discussed I'm afraid. I think they were looking more at people's reaction to the possibility of reducing the number of embryo's transferred. All 7 of us made it clear though that the cost would be a huge issue were we only allowed to have one embryo transferred. Most people have to pay for their treatment, and the thought of the possibility of needing more goes at IVF to get a sucess is not one we would welcome. Also, the waiting lists would become longer as more people need more cycles, so those women who are in the upper age brackets are possibly going to end up missing out on treatment.

Rest assured the HFEA were made aware that cost of treatmet is a huge issue and that we would all be expecting the cost per cycle to be lowered. Unfortunately, the HFEA do not have a huge say in how much different clinics charge for treatment. They are the regulatory body for fertility treatment, but they don't get to have a say in how it is paid for.

kski

Ace

Posts: 959

Reg: Mar 26th 2006

  • Send private message

34

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 12:13pm

Quoted

Originally posted by mrs_smiff
We were given a list of 4 possibilities to discuss. They are as follows:

Option A, HFEA to work with clinics, patients and professional bodies to increase awareness of risks of multiple births and to encourage increased use of single embryo transfer.

Option B, Set a maximum twin rate of no more than 10% that each clinic must not exceed, which could be phased in over a number of years.

Option C, Develop code of practice guidelines that defines in which cases only one embryo should be replaced, based on for example, age, number of previous treatment cycles, medical history and possibly embryo quality

Option D, A combination of options B and C above, IE clinics could initially be given an overall maximum twin birth rate. If they fail to achieve it, they have singke embryo transfer criteria imposed on them by the HFEA.

All of us said option A was the only one which we would be hapy seeing implemented and that the others were too ambiguous, or gave too little choice to be an option.
.




Thanks Mrs Smiff - I have read allied threads - and am asking eeyore to set aside a forum for the HFEA - because I believe this decision could have the biggest impact on success rates over the next five years !

I read through the posts - and as neither a woman nor someone who is hormonal ?? :D - have the following thoughts

1 - The Hfea are seeking to increase the regulation for a number of reasons
a - To reduce the cost burden on hospitals of caring for multiple births (government led )
b - To gain better regulatory control of the UK clinical IVF market
c - To strengthen their own position - as the central regulatory body

2 The deicsion to move to One embryo will be introduced unless there is significant public backlash.
If you read the HFEA website note for the agenda for the london meeting on 23rd June - its asks the following Questions -
1 - what would make the 1 emb tr policy acceptable
2 - What changes can be made to protocol to make this acceptable
3 - What role can the HFEA play in this ( PAraphrased )

This is not a meeting to discuss the policy - this is a meeting to discuss the management and implementation of the policy and how it is made acceptable ( sold ) to patients !

The simple truth is that given a choice - no person would decide to go for 1 ET rather than 2 ET.

Is this an ethical question ?
Well when the government bans Alcohol and smoking for the obvious detrimental and economic health costs, then as an individual I feel they have the right ot dictate to me, how my wife and I choose to spend our money in the pursuit of a family. However, I fear that the decision to implement this programme has already been initiated, and from the agenda and tone of the meeting above - this is a getsure to promote best practice and consultation.

It is rather sad that such a common issue ( 1 in 6 couples ) has reveived so little publicity, and the meetings are being attended by so few - Equally - Is it reasonable to expect a couple in the emotional rollercoast of a cycle to go to a meeting such as this !
MRS Smiff I applaud you for your committment -

The next meeting is on 23 June LONDON - and Fortunately, I may be otherwise engaged - at the maternity hospital - ( with twins - ironically ) using up some of those valuable resources - as a moderate, non smoking hard working tax payer - that I have contributed to ! Other wise I would attend - infact I may go anyway-

But it would be fantastic to see Tamba , FZ, fertility friend etc send a delegation of 50 + to this meeting to represent the Real face of this issue and - to let the HFEA know that should they proceed - there will be a barrage of adverse publicity -

Which is something they do not need, given their facile handling of the Panorama case.

When they do decide to implement the policy - They willbe able to point to these meeting, and say they joined into a consultation process and little objection was raised ! We have an excellent opportunity to make an impression at the next meeting.

Any ideas -


K

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "kski" (May 10th 2007, 12:20pm)


Eeyore

TECHNICAL ADMIN

    United Kingdom

Posts: 21,402

Reg: Sep 27th 2005

What's Up?
Manners are appreciated
and free to use

Thanks: 61 / 17

  • Send private message

35

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 12:44pm

**moved to a new home**

Posts: 671

Reg: Jul 30th 2006

Location: London

  • Send private message

36

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 12:48pm

I'll get my application form sent off this week!

On the application form it states that as a patient if you wish to go to the practioners meeting on the 11th June this may be possible... not sure if they'll let me go to both but I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that one!

I do agree that although nothing is cast in stone yet, this is something the HFEA are going to want to push through unless thay get some serious opposition. We've all got a duty to submit our opinions via the online questionnaire at least if we want our voices to be counted.

kski

Ace

Posts: 959

Reg: Mar 26th 2006

  • Send private message

37

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 1:01pm

Important - re IVF Treatment -

Suzy Q

Agree Completely -

E has switched this to a dedicated home - because we need to raise the profile -

IN hard facts reduce the eT to 1 will reduce rates to nearer 15% -

so that at £5k per cycle a Success could cost £30k - and how manay womem can put themselves through 6 cycles ??

Intresting payoff - reduced infant cost - vs increases risk to the IVF patient over longer treatment cycle - Perhaps the NHS are planning to defer treatment if you have elected to take IVF to save money there as well!


Back to topic -


IT seems wrong that a committee of Male. middle class 45 yr olds are decide the most approporaite treatment for a bunch of sub 45 yrs old, females ...

this meeting is an excellent opportunity to put across a real viewpoint and give them an impression of the emotion and collectve strength -


If you are on TAmba or FF - spread the work as well -

be great to see a meeting with 100 coouples and 6 panel members !

kski

Ace

Posts: 959

Reg: Mar 26th 2006

  • Send private message

38

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 1:10pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Suzy Q
I'll get my application form sent off this week!

On the application form it states that as a patient if you wish to go to the practioners meeting on the 11th June this may be possible... not sure if they'll let me go to both but I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that one!

I do agree that although nothing is cast in stone yet, this is something the HFEA are going to want to push through unless thay get some serious opposition. We've all got a duty to submit our opinions via the online questionnaire at least if we want our voices to be counted.


I will apply for both -

The law society puts on an excellent lunch and is only 10 mins away on the monday ! Think it counts as Corporate Social respponsibility !

If I cannot get in we can swap !


Be nice to get a group of FZ people there !

mrs_smiff

Superstar

  • "mrs_smiff" started this thread

Posts: 5,387

Reg: Jan 10th 2007

Location: Somerset

Children: 5 kids aged 21,18,14,13 and a little miracle born April 09

  • Send private message

39

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 4:51pm

I'm so glad that this thread is getting people passionate. After all, it is US they are discussing!! If we don't let them know that we will be on the rampage if the decision goes against us, then they will make up their minds regardless. The lady who is conducting the public research is called Juliet Tizzard. Her report will be filed in October, after which it is down to the board on the HFEA to make their decision.

The HFEA are strongly trying to argue that as other countries have reduced their multiple birth rate without reducing the succes rate through IVF, then we should do it too, regardless of the fact that these other countries tend to fund all women through IVF and use different protocols giving them a better success rate anyway! (They are very careful about not mentioning this fact!)

Juliet Tizzard gave us her email address last night at the meeting and suggested that if we had any questions to contact her. Well, I reckon we all have questions so this is her email address: juliet.tizzard@hfea.gov.uk (I don't think she said anything about not giving her email addy out to screaming hoards!!) She is a really nice woman though so don't abuse her, but she is the writer of the report so will listen and answer questions.

kski

Ace

Posts: 959

Reg: Mar 26th 2006

  • Send private message

40

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 6:16pm

mrs smiff



in agreement again

but 3 attendees from FZ would be disappointing - with an online active community of about 100 - I woulod hope the involvement goes up

To all the people (like me ) awho have had a bfp - think about the people who wil lbein your shoes TTC in 2 years time - as we all know 2 years can go very quickly -
if this rule had been introduced in 2006 - how would it have affected you ? and how P'd off would you be!

Posts: 709

Reg: Feb 4th 2007

Location: Wales

  • Send private message

41

Thursday, May 10th 2007, 6:30pm

Thanks mrs smiff :thanx:




FERTILITYZONE



MEDHURST – PROUD HOSTS OF FERTILITYZONE