If the NHS is going to treat single people what about the couples who have been refused treatment on the NHS? I was refused IUI on the NHS on the grounds that my husband had 2 children from a previous marriage. Where are my "human rights?" Perhaps I should divorce my husband and return to clinic as either a single person or a lesbian and than my rights will be more of a priority than a married person.

Daisy , Liverpool, England

the increasing medicalisation of our everyday needs and wishes means that the medical profession can push for more treatment, more patients, therefore more money for the nhs.
it is usually middle class, middle aged women who have postponed their child bearing until the careers have been fulfilled means that yes, they demand treatment for IVF.
yet again, the middle classes get their own way because the middle class medical professionals are able to command a greater need for treatment.
if WHO determines infertility to be a medical problem; they should fund it: not the NHS.

peepys, london, uk

Ludicrous on at least three grounds.
1. Allocating NHS resources to this, which has nothing to do with curing disease, illness or injury, is outrageous. Either the NHS has too much money or some other area is being deprived of the funds.
2. If GLOBAL WARMING is caused by human activity then this in turn must be a function of population size. Spending money on artificially increasing the population must be a crime against humanity. The planet should be seeing fewer babies, not more.
3. More babies add to the 'housing crisis'.

Ray, Dartmouth,

I respect the life choices of single and lesbian women, but as Frank Crosby pointed out above, the NHS should be spending our tax money for treating medical needs, not wants. This decision could lead down a drak path of debate and conflict on what the government should pay for and bring into question the issues of choice, opportunity and consequence.

Is the government willing to pay subsidize all those people that have not been able to find a £100K job to provide the comforts, education and opportunities their family deserves? Why should the inability to find a mate be given more importance than the inability to find a high paying job? How about debt? If somebody is unable to pay their debts, why should the government not pay off those debts but instead punish them for it?

Pavlos, London,

Nice to know that the NHS isn't as strapped for cash as we thought. One might even wonder why such a service was offered for heterosexual couples by the NHS - or indeed privately - in a world where the population size is soaring out of control.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

I lived and worked in Birminhgam as a physician assistant for two years, and left the West Midlands only 8 weeks ago. As a medical care provider, I could not refer women for infertility workups if they were obese, over 40, already had children, or a host of other reasons. Yet, if I were still there I could send someone unwilling to accept sperm in the normal fashion? As a tax paying resident of the UK, the only time I needed to utilize the services of the NHS was before I made a couple of trips that required travel vaccinations--and those are not covered by the NHS. Take care of those with medical NEEDS, not wants!

Frank Crosby PA-C, MPAS, Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

If UCLH think that they would have a choice in today’s climate of sexual discrimination laws, they are patently naive. Our NHS funds should be used to treat sickness and cure disease, not social engineering support of minority lifestyles which evidently are not natural. This goes against God's created nature in a most fundamental way.

Phil Anslow, Brentwood, Essex

What an appalling waste of money when the NHS needs to be spending it in more critical areas. Conceiving in a privilege, not a right and certainly does not merit free treatment. These people should pay from their own pockets!

Sienna, London,