IVF treatment could be made available to over 40s in Worcestershire

Fertility treatment for over 40s Fertility treatment for over 40s

FERTILITY treatment could be made available to women aged over 40 in Worcestershire for the first time.

New NHS guidelines published today say that women up to the age of 42 who are struggling to have a baby should be offered treatment.

The current upper age limit is 39 but the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) now says that a single round of IVF treatment should be offered to women aged between 40-42.

Although the recommendations are considered “best practice”, NHS trusts are not bound to follow them.

NICE recommends that three cycles of IVF treatment should be offered to women under 40 but only two are currently offered in Worcestershire.

However Dr Stuart Bourne, Worcestershire’s assistant director of public health, told your Worcester News that policy will now be reviewed in light of the new guidelines.

“The Worcestershire Clinical Policy Collaboration group, on behalf of the South Worcestershire, Redditch and Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest Clinical Commissioning Groups is planning to undertake a formal review of their current commissioning policy in the light of the recently published update of the NICE clinical guidelines for fertility,” he said. “This review will take into account the recommendations acknowledging that, whilst these are not mandatory actions, they do provide the ‘best practice’ recommendations for the treatment of patients with fertility issues.”

Around one in every seven heterosexual couples in the UK who are trying for a baby experience problems conceiving a child and NHS Worcestershire provided 211 funding-assisted conception treatments for during 2011/12.

Each round of IVF treatment costs about £3,000.

Tim Child, consultant gynaecologist and director of the Oxford Fertility Unit, worked to develop the new guidelines for NICE and said recommending IVF for over 40s was “not a decision taken lightly”.

“When a woman reaches her mid-30s her fertility begins to decline, even more so from her late 30s,” he said. “However, many women do conceive naturally in the 40-42 year age group, but for those who can’t, and who have been diagnosed with the medical condition of infertility, then improvement in IVF success rates over the last decade mean that we are now able to offer cost effective treatment with a single IVF cycle.”

Would the suggested changes to fertility treatments benefit you? Call 01905 742282 or email ta@worcesternews.co.uk.

Comments(6)

Ballymoss says...
5:22pm Wed 20 Feb 13

A total disgrace when there are people out there crying out for cancer drugs but yet they are being denied any treatment on account of the cost of the drugs.
Lets continue to try and cure the people who need life saving drugs before we even think of adding to the population like this by encouraging older ladies to have sprogs that late in their lives!
What a total waste of money this will be!!!

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
5:59pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Having a child is not a right - it's not life threatening. I don't want my tax pounds paying for IVF for over forties, especially those who have delayed having children out of a lifestyle choice!

Ballymoss says...
10:22pm Wed 20 Feb 13

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Having a child is not a right - it's not life threatening. I don't want my tax pounds paying for IVF for over forties, especially those who have delayed having children out of a lifestyle choice!
My feelings exactly!!!

green49 says...
7:18am Thu 21 Feb 13

Totally agree with the above comments, it is about time we got better care and treatment for cancer and many other life threatning illness, waste of money for the few who will get it, i sympathise with the plight of some who have no kids but at 40 plus they should have done something before if it was possible, why are medical researchers wasting time on this?

More Tea Vicar says...
9:21am Thu 21 Feb 13

As others have said, having children is not a right, and not having children is not life threatening.

Though I am glad we have a health service which provides health care free at point of need, there does need to be a debate about the amount of care it can provide, and who to.

Since the NHS was set up, the world has clearly changed, with people living much longer beyond retirement, for example. More importantly, technology advances mean many treatments are available which were undreamt of when the NHS was set up.

I would suggest the NHS should restrict itself largely to treating life-threatening and chronic diseases. IVF doesn't belong in that group.

Landy44 says...
10:23pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Agree with the above. This is disgraceful when the poor chap from Alcester on the news last night was denied cancer treatment (even though his consultants were apparently not consulted).

The decisions and bureaucracy in this country really is sending it down the plug hole.

We really need someone with common sense in office....but anyone suitable probably knows they'd never get there by being honest, having integrity, and trying to do the best for the country.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree