If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Cosmetic operations in cases of body dysmorphia should be allowed.
But there's a bit of a difference between a cosmetic operation and one which will ease or cure chronic pain. Is there not?
Or is pain the just rewards for those disgusting fatties?
Is NHS funding unlimited?
I think he's just taking your argument and running with it. If we're not taking into account how the complaint arose and are just focusing on the the fact "i've paid me money, now i want me service" then it has to work both ways. People who pay for the NHS have a right to an operation; well i want a birth mark removed from my arse.
No he's not, he's extending it in a flawed manner.
My argument is that people pay money, in the expectation that the NHS will fix chronic pain when required.
Now the NHS is turning round to the hand that feeds it saying that "no, fuck off fatty, you can't have anything. Go and whimper in the corner- don't you wish you'd not eaten that pie now, eh, fatso?"
That is completely and totally wrong- morally, ethically and practically.
I notice they're not kicking Best out on his arse, for instance.
It is a way of cutting corners by attacking a group that is vilified. Blame the fatties for everything, and nobody cares. They brought it on themselves by eating pie, disgusting fat bastards that they are.
Skiiers bring skiing accidents on themselves. Kids who run in the road in front of cars bring injury on themselves. Shall we not treat them too? If you think we should treat them, they why is it different for them?
Is NHS funding unlimited?
ps George Best was a private patient, and there is no suggestion that anyone in his position would be denied treatment on the NHS.
It isn't unlimited.
But it's odd how they target some vilified group and consign them to a life of abject and chronic pain. Instead of, for instance, not paying GPs a tenner a go to jab a needle in an old person.
That is the point.
He's an alcoholic, no sign of recovery, brought on himself. He would be a waste of money if paid for by the NHS. So why isn't his treatment cut off?
How can they do enough exercise to lose weight with a dodgy hip or knee?
Oh, they can't
Well, its the managers that have made this decision.
Of course they are.
But they don't cost a GP a tenner to administer.
Except it does. If you're fat you won't get treatment.
So what is the difference between treating an alcoholic and not treating a person with a high BMI?
And anyway an alcoholic would be denied a liver transplant on the NHS if they were still drinking.
Whilst I don't believe this decision is one that I would have taken, you have to look at it in the whole. The decision isn't taken because they don't want to treat fat people. It's taken because they can argue that the benefits of this operation are reduced because the joint will not last as long as it would for others.
Now compare a limited outcome with investing the same money in, say, more out of hours support for people with long term chronic decisions (which will reduce the number of people needing admission to hospital) and it becomes a different argument.
You're right, it doesn't. For compariosn when we need a nurse to vaccinate housebound patients it costs us £12.50 each...
But the cause of the knee/hip problem may be... vicious circle etc...
sounds kinda scary that bit as if your expecting next ...fat people banned from trains ...fat people not allowed out till dark.
no what I meant was the start of healthcare privatisation (well actually that started a while ago), and the downsizing of the NHS.......