Should IVF be Given on the NHS to Smokers?

One in three UK IVF clinics are turning away smokers, according to today’s papers. The difficult question is “Are they justified in doing so?”

The smokers are being turned away on the premise that it is more difficult to conceive naturally or for the IVF to be as effective if you smoke. Let us assume this is true- bearing in mind that one of today’s papers suggests that there is no concrete evidence for this assumption. Is it right that these women should have to stop smoking during such a stressful time anyway before they are allowed IVF?

In my opinion, yes. It is difficult for me to empathise as I am only 21 and do not know what it is like to really want a child and not be able to conceive. I am sure that it is devastating. But if that is the case, then would you not do everything in your power to make sure that you had the best chance of conceiving the first time round? If you wanted it so badly, would you not be willing to do anything? And if you are not willing to make such small sacrifices, then what type of a parent are you likely to be if you do manage to conceive?

It seems unfair that smokers seem to be getting picked on quite a lot and that smoking has been singled out as a main cause for less effective IVF treatment. What about people who are overweight? Or people who drink excessively? These too are common causes of a low fertility rate. But instead of allowing everybody to have IVF, perhaps even more restrictions should be imposed than there are now.

It is an unavoidable fact that IVF treatment is an extremely expensive process and it is also a fact that the NHS does not have all that much money to be throwing away. This is not a case of picking and choosing who the Goverment thinks would be an eligible parent or about discrimination in any way- this is about maximising your chances of a successful IVF cycle.

Why should the NHS waste money on giving somebody IVF treatment when they know that the chances of it working are already lowered by factors that could easily be changed in that person’s life?

But then we start to get into new waters with whole new issues such as “in that case, should people who have smoked all their life be denied lung cancer treatment?” Or “if people have been overweight all their lives, should they be denied treatment for diabetes or heart disease?”

These questions raise ethical issues that I really am not qualified to deal with, but at the same time, if people know the risks of their actions and they do it anyway, should the NHS be there to bail them out of a situation that, by rights, they got themselves into in the first place? Or should it be there to treat children with Leukemia and people with other diseases and conditions that are not related to lifestyle choices?

Perhaps people should think more carefully about their lifestyles and try to live a little more healthily thereby preventing lifestyle related illnesses rather than waiting for them to manifest and then attempting to cure them. Not only should people think about the good it will do for their lives, but should also think about who they could be potentially depriving of NHS treatment just because they could not be bothered to look after themselves.