Foolproof Or Favourite Mince Pie Recipes...
Food & Drink1 min ago
Should The Nhs Fund This?
87 Answers
Regardless of whther you belive this sort of thing should be happening should it really be up to the NHS to fund it?
Personally I think not. The NHS is struggling with life and death cases so lifestyle choices should not be paid for. And that appies to boob jobs and other nosense paid by the tax payer.
http://
Personally I think not. The NHS is struggling with life and death cases so lifestyle choices should not be paid for. And that appies to boob jobs and other nosense paid by the tax payer.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Regardless of whther you belive this sort of thing should be happening should it really be up to the NHS to fund it?
Personally I think not. The NHS is struggling with life and death cases so lifestyle choices should not be paid for."
The problem is that I don't see how you can separate the judgement of whether this is a "lifestyle choice" or something more fundamental to a person's identity from the funding issue. The NHS was founded on the principle of medical care being "free at the point of need". Clearly one doesn't "need" medication for a lifestyle choice, but it's clearly in dispute that transgender people are "choosing" anything as opposed to "needing" to have their "true" identity respected and treatment provided accordingly.
There's also the question about whether it's appropriate at such an age... but this has been gone over on AB so many times and I don't think there's any regular on this site who will change their minds as a result of repeating the same arguments for the hundredth time.
Personally I think not. The NHS is struggling with life and death cases so lifestyle choices should not be paid for."
The problem is that I don't see how you can separate the judgement of whether this is a "lifestyle choice" or something more fundamental to a person's identity from the funding issue. The NHS was founded on the principle of medical care being "free at the point of need". Clearly one doesn't "need" medication for a lifestyle choice, but it's clearly in dispute that transgender people are "choosing" anything as opposed to "needing" to have their "true" identity respected and treatment provided accordingly.
There's also the question about whether it's appropriate at such an age... but this has been gone over on AB so many times and I don't think there's any regular on this site who will change their minds as a result of repeating the same arguments for the hundredth time.
No, the NHS should not fund:
1) IVF etc there are enough people in the world
2) Cosmetic surgery for vanity
3) Any number of a myriad of attention seeking part swapping, gender cobras and associated drugs.
The NHS is not a bottomless pit and should be there for medical procedures that are necessary. Any of the above if desired should be paid for privately.
1) IVF etc there are enough people in the world
2) Cosmetic surgery for vanity
3) Any number of a myriad of attention seeking part swapping, gender cobras and associated drugs.
The NHS is not a bottomless pit and should be there for medical procedures that are necessary. Any of the above if desired should be paid for privately.
What they need to discover is a way to reset whatever needs resetting so that everyone accepts who they are. Unlikely to be discovered in my lifetime though. As for the NHS, they should concentrate on curing disease. I don't feel that altering the body to closer match a flawed mental view of self, counts as something the NHS can afford to budget for. Those afflicted are probably best served by counselling to accept themselves and enjoy their life as they are.
"The main question is will you die without it?
The answer is clearly no."
I don't see how that's the main question. Plenty of conditions the NHS treats aren't immediately life-threatening. Why should this one be an exception? Only because you don't regard it as anything other than a choice.
So you can't set that judgement aside, is the point.
The answer is clearly no."
I don't see how that's the main question. Plenty of conditions the NHS treats aren't immediately life-threatening. Why should this one be an exception? Only because you don't regard it as anything other than a choice.
So you can't set that judgement aside, is the point.
My understanding is that the aim of such a drug regime is NOT to change a child's life forever, as stated in this rather sensational article, rather to give them a chance to be sure about such a huge decision by giving them more thinking time than they would naturally have. 800 recipients over the whole of the Uk is not many. I get the concern regarding research evidence but with such a small cohort of patients, its difficult to do research except by retrospective examination of data. Its probably possible to extract data about the safety of the treatment but not sure how one would define efficacy?
Oh and while we are on the subject let stop fertility treatment which is given to many more people, treatment of sports injuries, treatment of RTA's where the patient is responsible for their injuries, treatment of addictions...... shall I go on?
Oh and while we are on the subject let stop fertility treatment which is given to many more people, treatment of sports injuries, treatment of RTA's where the patient is responsible for their injuries, treatment of addictions...... shall I go on?
The NHS could save £billions by not treating or giving drugs to old people who have a high probability of dying soon.
Young people who have a lot of years working for the countryahead of them should take priority even if it a trivial case of changing gender.
Then those in work (or available to work) should be next in the queue.
Last for any treatment would be those who will die from old age soon anyway.
Obviously I want what is best for the country and tax payer, and any bogotry and stupid prejudice in my answer is purely accidental. :-)
Young people who have a lot of years working for the countryahead of them should take priority even if it a trivial case of changing gender.
Then those in work (or available to work) should be next in the queue.
Last for any treatment would be those who will die from old age soon anyway.
Obviously I want what is best for the country and tax payer, and any bogotry and stupid prejudice in my answer is purely accidental. :-)
@OG: I (obviously) don't agree with you at all, but even if I did it's worth stressing that mental health services in this country are shockingly underfunded and understaffed. Presumably that's because not that many people historically took it seriously either, perhaps regarding it as a "choice" whether you were depressed or not. It's getting better lately, but it's not easy to notice it if you are hunting for such treatment.
I think the point of this particular type of treatment is that it's still reversible, merely "offsetting" puberty rather than stopping it altogether. I don't think that it therefore matters if the child in question will change their mind at a later date or not.
Again, there's a certain amount of judgement that necessarily has to enter into that question. Stopping treatment later shouldn't mean it isn't needed "now".
But anyway, as I started with this is really just an opportunity to repeat, almost verbatim, what we said on this a month ago, and then a month before that, and again twice in June, etc etc.
Again, there's a certain amount of judgement that necessarily has to enter into that question. Stopping treatment later shouldn't mean it isn't needed "now".
But anyway, as I started with this is really just an opportunity to repeat, almost verbatim, what we said on this a month ago, and then a month before that, and again twice in June, etc etc.
"The NHS was founded on the principle of medical care being "free at the point of need""
Aneurin Bevan in 1948 heralded the NHS and with it the above statement on a principle of humanitarian achievement in the face of poor medical care and treatment of the prevailing diseases at the time.
Since then it has been used as a war cry of the left......"the envy of the world"...."Jenifer's ear" and a Political pawn of which we have never seen the like.
He never envisaged that it would be used for vanity enhancement procedures or indeed for sex change overtures.
How successful are sex gender reversing procedures?
Are they worth doing?
Will the patient benefit?
Again there is paucity of studies and to be fair, once again in medicine and the internet ,one can pick, the study to enhance one/s opinion.
So, I will choice mine ...which came to the conclusion that morbidity, suicide, ongoing psychiatric disorders were greater in sex reversed patients than the general population. In other words, the procedure is worth doing, but in the minority of patients.
being born is a matter of luck.....rich parents, good schools, good education, poor parents, lesser schools, poorer education and limited prospects.
Sheer luck as to which disease you "pick out"...cancer, muscle wasting disorder, heart attack and it is just your bad luck, as with being born into the wrong sexual body.........luck.......bad luck.
The NHS as we know it is coming to an end because of lack of funds....it cannot continue in this form.
With the present state of the NHS, with the element of doubtful success with this condition....no the NHS shouldn't fund this at the moment.
Aneurin Bevan in 1948 heralded the NHS and with it the above statement on a principle of humanitarian achievement in the face of poor medical care and treatment of the prevailing diseases at the time.
Since then it has been used as a war cry of the left......"the envy of the world"...."Jenifer's ear" and a Political pawn of which we have never seen the like.
He never envisaged that it would be used for vanity enhancement procedures or indeed for sex change overtures.
How successful are sex gender reversing procedures?
Are they worth doing?
Will the patient benefit?
Again there is paucity of studies and to be fair, once again in medicine and the internet ,one can pick, the study to enhance one/s opinion.
So, I will choice mine ...which came to the conclusion that morbidity, suicide, ongoing psychiatric disorders were greater in sex reversed patients than the general population. In other words, the procedure is worth doing, but in the minority of patients.
being born is a matter of luck.....rich parents, good schools, good education, poor parents, lesser schools, poorer education and limited prospects.
Sheer luck as to which disease you "pick out"...cancer, muscle wasting disorder, heart attack and it is just your bad luck, as with being born into the wrong sexual body.........luck.......bad luck.
The NHS as we know it is coming to an end because of lack of funds....it cannot continue in this form.
With the present state of the NHS, with the element of doubtful success with this condition....no the NHS shouldn't fund this at the moment.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank10 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
ChatterBank29 mins ago
My Daftest Question To Date. Lpg
How it Works34 mins ago
