Should This Be Funded ?

[webbo3]

If the NHS is short of money why is type of thing funded.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4678300/First-man-birth-Britain-says-Scott-Parker.html


Dave.

[Baldric]

///The taxpayer-funded process costs an average of £29,000.///

So wrong, when urgent Surgery is being delayed due to lack of funds.

[ToraToraTora]

so a woman had a baby, that happens all the time on the NHS. I am, however, against any sort of funding for assisting the production of humans. There us no shortage.

[Old_Geezer]

Clearly not a birth by a man. I don't see why media encourage such daft claims. And even if one's definition of a man is a strange one, she's hardly likely to be the first such individual to give birth.

Are you referring to the "transition" or the birth ?

[goodgoalie]

The NHS should not be funding any kind of IVF. The NHS - already in a funding crisis - is there to treat sick people, not to provide children for the childless.

[Old_Geezer]

Don't think it was IVF gg. Drunken incident apparently.

[ToraToraTora]

no amount of chopping bits off or sticking bits on can turn a woman into a man or vice versa, load of old pony, end of.

[youngmafbog]

Couldnt agree more TTT. And no, it should not be funded.

But as pointed out above these are simply women having babies, they were born with a womb and all the bits and just like to think they are men. But they are not.

[marval]

Should the NHS be funding this? The easy answer is no, there are far more urgent medical needs that the money should be used for.

[MallyJ]

I don't know what it is like to hate myself in the skin I was born. It is therefore difficult to put myself in the position these people find themselves. If it is a really debilitating hatred of themselves then I do not see why not...the NHS funds other surgery for people who dislike their bodies or parts of them and other elective medical procedures so why not for those who are desperate to have their bodies match the gender they perceive themselves to be.

[THEMOTLEY1]

The only person funding this should be the Patient themselves, far more important things need doing first.

[hereIam]

I agree THEMOTLEY.

[cassa333]

No man in history has ever become pregnant and given birth. That as far as I am aware is the simple truth of the matter.

Women do it all the time however.

[david small]

No funds available, so let's waste what we can't afford.

[Cloverjo]

The pregnancy wasn't funded. The child was born from a body which still had the requisite parts in the usual way.

The sex change surgery might have cost a lot, but that's a different question.

[naomi24]

The mother is described as a “Proud dad” and is registered as the mother, which she is. She can pretend to be whatever she wants to be, but she can’t be both.

I feel sorry for any child born into a life surrounded by such bizarrely muddled individuals. No, the NHS shouldn’t be funding this sort of thing.

[emmie]

in the case that the NHS is short of cash, this sort of thing shouldn't be funded.

[douglas9401]

Woman With Slightly Masculine Features Has Baby.

[kvalidir]

The pregnancy wasn't funded, no-one is 'muddled' this just shows a clearly transphobic lack of understanding about what has happened here. The conception and pregnancy was 'normal', the gender reassignment is an altogether different matter, THAT is what costs the money not the pregnancy- but Cloverjo has already covered all of this in her post.

[ToraToraTora]

the whole headline is wrong, a man did not give birth, end of.

[naomi24]

kvalidir at 12:10, that’s several times in recent days I’ve seen you accuse other people of failing to understand. You appear to be on a bit of a strange roll with that one at the moment. I, having been the one who said these people are ‘muddled’, have not failed to understand the situation. I know the pregnancy wasn’t funded, but that doesn’t detract from the impression I’ve gained that the woman involved here, and her partner, are ‘muddled’ - and my sympathy for the child remains.