Poland to end state funding for IVF treatment

I'm sorry to disappoint you but my view wouldn't be any different. .

Sorry Ironside but I don't agree. Almost every EU country manages to do this. Infertility is not life threatening, but it's still a medical condition, and why should only those who can afford private treatment receive it?


But this is relevant. PiS wanted to have IVF banned completely, and now they are in power, the treatment is going to be withdrawn.
This is not just down to it being a question of money is it?


It wasn't that simple. The last government had been trying for years to get legislation passed on it as they were under pressure from the European Commission.


We could, and you have already said you don't believe in a state funded health system, but by the same token, why should the Polish taxpayer have to pay towards treating someone who has spent years pickling their liver for example? It's treading on dangerous ground going down that route.

You are entitled to your opinion. However as the IVF treatment is not curing infertility it shouldn't be financed from the Health Service money.


Of course not it is also politicks like always. After all starting financing that treatment from public money was also a political decision.
We have balance here.


They had TK, President, government, majority in the Parliament and Senate, it was simple enough.

But if you have IVF treatment then you don't need a cure. And anyway, there isn't one cure for infertility, it's not like it's a stomach ulcer y'know.

Although I'll be honest, I think maybe in the long term it is better than IVF treatment will only be private, means less poor people having kids and that's always a good thing.......from an socio-economic point of view of course. Of course it sucks for the individuals, but y'know there's always bank loans and wonga if you really, really wanna have a rugrat.........or Ukrainian surrogates. They're as cheap as chips and glad for the money.

As Smurf has said, infertility isn't a curable condition, there are many different reasons for it as I'm sure you know.
Perhaps lung and liver transplants for smokers and alcoholics shouldn't be financed either, no guaranteed cures and self inflicted illnesses to boot, but no-one would question that these people shouldn't receive medical treatment.

Really, it's a question of ethics more than the money.


Eventually, but it took time because there was so much opposition from the church. Bills from all the political parties with varying solutions got nowhere in Parliament. The Church agreed to compromise in the end because there was no law and everything was unregulated.


It's also ruling out Mr and Mrs average couple too though Smurf, only the wealthy would be able to afford private treatment.

That drinker will have paid far more in tax on his booze over the years than it costs to treat him. However, the person who wants tens of thousands spent on their IVF treatment will then expect to have hundreds of thousands more on the education of and health care for that child.

I don't think so, like, most families where both people are working would be able to afford a loan for one and maybe two treatments.

I know I'd give it a go for sure. More to life than money.

yes well, once one has children, one discovers just how untrue that statement is...:)

Indeed and money of Health Service should be spend on curable conditions.


Well, this argument is brought forward by those who believe that medical treatments and services shouldn't be in the hands of a state. I think that they should receive the same treatment as long as it is legal to advertise alcohol beverages and cigarettes.

Ultimately a private medical insurance would be better.


Don't really know what to say to that. I mean it should be a question of ethics but realistically speaking it is a question of money and politicks, they go together as a hand and a glove.


I don't think that PO is that much bothered by the CC. I would rather gather that lobbing in favor of that particular notion took some time.


Maybe, I don't know much about they standing. It would came as a surprise to me if that would be the case.


That is kinda my point you know.

Those aren't my particular views at all. I believe that everyone should have the right to medical treatment regardless of lifestyle related illnesses. I was just pointing out the flaws in thinking in a certain way.

I wouldn't be an advocate for private healthcare either.


As I understand it, IVF is legal but there was no regulation in place. For example, there was no oversight for the disposal of unused embryos. The Church sought a compromise so that certain experiments would be restricted.

I understand but as I have pointed out money from health services shouldn't be used on projects and issues that don't cure people or treat their illnesses but in fact undertake to level social or nature's injustices and inequalities.

I have a name for that - confusion.


I don't know. If you are right it would be a big surprise to me.

I said above that 500 per child needs good education to become an investment rather than cost. There's one more requirement: good economy. If economy is bad, those surplus children will escape to another country. The state can spend 500 per child and not see the return at all. Or the 'surplus person' won't be able to find a job and will live on social welfare.

In vitro may not technically cure infertility, but the net effect is it results in more children. That's what couples ultimately care about. Unless you're like Duda and split hairs for bogus reasons to suit your agenda*, you won't care. A real cure for infertility is only desirable for couples that want more than one extra kid.

Furthermore, when In Vitro is successful it results in a new birth. Curing someone of infertility doesn't mean the new potential will be used. So state funding of in vitro makes more sense than state funding of (hypothetical) infertility cure. Fewer things to control, fewer fraud opportunities.

* veto for transsexuals on the basis that a person might want to undergo the very long and painful sex change process more than once - causing legal confusion.

* pardoning Mariusz Kamiński under the excuse he wanted to calm people rather than fan the flames
* signing various documents and acts as soon as possible under the guise of calming people and making them not worry about anything during Christmas