- cosmetic treatments like tummy tuck or boob job (provided I could demonstrate that it upset me enough)
- treatments for preventable diseases like lung cancer and liver disease (even if I was a heavy smoker or drinker)
- an abortion
- a caesarean (even if there is no physical need of one)
- gastric bypass (if I was dangerously overweight)
I'm glad I live in a country that has a National Health Service that pays for these things and doesn't prevent people from having these treatments. I know that people feel genuine anguish about their physical appearance and so for them, cosmetic surgery can make all the difference.
We all know smoking, drinking, casual sex, overeating and lots of other things are bad for us, but the vast majority of us do at least some of them in our lives. Most get away with it, but if I didn't get away with it and developed a condition that threatened my life, I'd absolutely want to get treatment for it.
The same goes for abortions. Some people just aren't in a position to raise a child and are making a sensible decision for the sake of the child, and some couples face agonising decisions about whether they can raise a child who has been diagnosed with abnormalities. Some poor women find themselves pregnant after being raped, and I for one know that I couldn't spend the rest of my life looking into the eyes of my attacker in my own child.
I'm not judging here, I had an abortion at the age of 17, which was absolutely the right thing to do. As well as the fact I was barely out of school, I broke up with the father about a year later and he has since died after suffering from a drug addiction for many years, so I know I made the right decision. However, I still think about how old that child would be and feel sadness about what I did. I'm not alone in this and, despite what the press seem to suggest, I think the majority of people don't take a decision like that lightly.
Even now, I still wonder whether I'd be capable of going through with a pregnancy if the child had an abnormality. I'm not sure I would, which must sound crazy to some people after reading about my desperation to have a child. Of course, it would depend on the type of problem and the severity, but I'm glad I'm in a position where the option would be available to me to terminate a pregnancy if I felt it was necessary.
The point I'm trying to make is that if a person needs treatment for any medical condition, they would get it on the NHS. It doesn't matter what circumstances surround why you find yourself in that position, the government have made provisions to ensure that no matter whether you are rich or poor, whatever your illness or condition, there will be doctors working on making you better.
My husband has a condition that can be treated, but he's denied this. This is because the government have inexplicably separated fertility treatments from all other forms of medical treatment. The worst part is that they've left it to the local PCTs to decide what they do and don't offer on the NHS. This means that if I lived in a different part of the country, we might get treatment provided regardless of whether I have a child or not. So we could just up and move, but here's the catch, I already have a child who is settled in a good school, we have jobs and a mortgage, so we can't do that. Not without causing a great deal of upheaval to the child we already have.
I think it's about time the government started realising that infertility is a treatable condition that should be included in the NHS. Of course it is expensive and would have to be restricted on the basis of number of treatments, age, health and weight. I also don't object to the fact that they have to satisfy themselves that you can provide a stable, safe home for the child. They can't do this with all children born in this country, but they can make sure paedophiles and abusers aren't bringing children into the world by IVF to be abused.
They might argue that they already offer a restricted service on the NHS, which of course they do, but they really need to remove the postcode lottery element. If nobody in the country was entitled to free IVF if there is already a living child in the relationship, I'd find it easier to cope with. Of course this doesn't take into account the need felt by the couple to expand their brood, but unless you've been there, I can see why that might not be considered important. I just wish treatment was fairly distributed.
Hmmmm, I can feel a career in politics calling!
