# HFEA figures reveal more than 10,000 women had successful IVF treatment in 2006



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

For more information click here :

http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/content/view/522/205/

I have also attached the facts and figures PDF which provides some interesting reading.

Tony


----------



## Blu (Jul 28, 2005)

Thanks Tony

Had a quick look at this and whilst the PDF document gives the NICE guidelines about NHS treatment, it would be interesting to see how many people firstly got past their local authorities self-determined (and often highly restrictive) eligibility criteria to qualify, and secondly received their one cycle within a realistic timescale.

Blu


----------



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

Unfortunately the HFEA's regulatory control doesn't cover that side of things and so it will not be documented by them.


----------



## Blu (Jul 28, 2005)

I wonder who would do that study?


----------



## Charlies-Mum (May 25, 2005)

Daft question - do the births in 2006 result from the cycles in 2006 (i.e. if a cycle was completed in November 2006, the birth was in 2007 - was that included?)


----------



## Anthony Reid (Jan 1, 2002)

Blu said:


> I wonder who would do that study?


Somebody like us or inuk I guess - but we would only have access to our own userbases.



Charlies-Mum said:


> Daft question - do the births in 2006 result from the cycles in 2006 (i.e. if a cycle was completed in November 2006, the birth was in 2007 - was that included?)


I'll look into it for you.

Tony
x


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2008)

It is fantastic that so many women and men have had their dreams come true   .......but......and call me an old cynic, this is tytical government PR to try to make the "man" in the street think that we have a great fertility "system". We do not. 25% (or whatever it was) live birth rate is nothing to be proud of - for people who can not afford private IVF (and who are lucky enough to meet the ridiculous criteria) this could be their only hope. I so wish someone would be brave enough, within the HFEA, to talk to the top clinics who are achieiving 50-60% success rates (ie double) and MAKE the other clinics follow suit (commonly called "doing the job the HFEA should be doing"). I can not think of any other area of medicine where such sub-standard levels of "success" are achieved and accepted, where improvements are not sought and poor performances are ignored.

Angry Lukey     

xxx


----------



## lily67 (Jun 14, 2006)

Looking through the figures, I was completely not surprised that my old clinic _yet again _ had a success rate of only 11% for my age group in 2006. Why is such substandard performance acceptable? Their success rates have not improved over the last 3 years, why does no-one have the guts to stand up and do something about it?

I pity all of the poor couples who have to have their 1 NHS go there and fail and then get suckered into further private treatment with no improved chance of success.


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

lily67 said:


> Looking through the figures, I was completely not surprised that my old clinic _yet again _ had a success rate of only 11% for my age group in 2006. Why is such substandard performance acceptable? Their success rates have not improved over the last 3 years, why does no-one have the guts to stand up and do something about it?


Lilly,

The NHS governing bodies have a responsibility to maintain and improve standards. The HFEA has a responsibility to write the rules. It doesn't have to write good rules, just write rules, and clinics *must* obey those rules or should they cross the HFEA, they will get into trouble, as Mr Taranissi, Professor Craft............did. If you read the March 2005 report by the government's Science and Technology committee, the HFEA was criticised for allowing clinics to operate even when they contravened HFEA rules. We are talking quite major breaches of medical protocol. So why are some clinics allowed to do that, and others like the ARGC punished for minor infringements? Any ideas?

If you read reports like the March 2005 report by the government's Science and Technology committee, it compares inspection costs. What do I mean? Hospitals, doctors, pharmacies, and so on, must maintain certain standards, and are inspected by Health service personnel to make sure they do. Also the NHS must strive to up standards, year on year.

Infertility clinics are an anomaly. The inspection of these is done by the HFEA, and when you look at the cost of an NHS versus an HFEA inspection, the HFEA inspections are much more expensive. And the HFEA has upped the price of an inspection since the March 2005 report! Guess who pays for that? You, me, ... Also the HFEA requires clinics to maintain a mountain of paperwork Who do you think pays for all those bits of paper. And on top of that, there is no legal requirement for the HFEA to have good quality standards, or do anything about improving things. Their only job is to write the rules.

I think, the medical stuff should be taken from the HFEA and given to the NHS governing bodies. It is ludicrous to have this anomaly where the NHS inspects all other medical establishments, *except* infertility clinics. Surely a clean room in an NHS hospital, is exactly the same as one in a clinic. The NHS hospital, must maintain the clean room to certain standards, and improve the operation of the clean room year on year. A clean room in an infertility clinic, once upon a time, could be maintained to any old standards, and the HFEA had no legal obligation to improve things. The EU tissue directive changed that.

I don't know about clean rooms, but the one thing, that the EU tissue directive did, was force the HFEA to raise standards in infertility clinics. And even then, clinics in the rest Europe were forced to meet the new standards by April 2006. The HFEA pleaded with Europe, and got an exemption, so the UK didn't have to meet the new standards till April 2007. And then in May 2005, the HFEA had the nerve to issue a press release about the dangers of using clinics abroad, when, they knew that a year later, all European clinics, except the UK, would be operating at the higher standards. In May 2006, UK were allowed to operate while only meeting HFEA standards, but more than likely clinics were meeting the higher EU standards.

So I think, the medical stuff should be taken from the HFEA and given to the NHS governing bodies. IMO, that would result in higher standards and lower costs.

I hope this gives you some idea why 
> Their success rates have not improved over the last 3 years,

And if you look at what happens to people who criticise the HFEA as in Mr Taranissi, perhaps you understand 
> why does no-one have the guts to stand up and do something about it?

Lorna

PS My understanding is that in the NHS, there is a body that dictates standards, another that inspects medical establishments to check they meet the standards, and a third body that disciplines personnel for maintain to meet those standards. This third body can get a member of staff demoted, suspended, sacked. The HFEA, as far as I am aware, combines all 3 roles.


----------



## Wraakgodin (Jun 17, 2006)

Thanks for posting this Tony, I found it really interesting.

Sue


----------

