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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
But why should the NHS pay for it?
exactamundo
covered by a south park episode where kyles dad believed he was a dolphin
That's mild. I have a tourettes type outbreak when I get onto thatsubject.
I'm not sure that we don't.
You've pretty much got it covered there. So one which of those grounds does laser hair removal fail?
I'd like to say that it wouldn't happen, but I'm not so sure.
When I asked about whether they were needed, I was trying to reflect the fact that acute hospitals are grossly inefficient. My worry is that many of the recent redundancies are knee jerk and are not being made in those inefficient areas, and that we will get the very thing you describe above.
What makes it worse is that I know just how illinformed many managers are on that topic. I seriously don't have faith that they could tell you where their department is inefficient.
It's worth looking into. Basically the insurance companies wanted to put some financial breaks on their expenditure so they said to hospitals "we will only pay $n" for certain procedures/episodes of care. As a result the US hospitals had to become more efficient - hence their day case rate is much higher than ours (for example).
Look at whatthe Govt has just introduced and the only difference is where the money comes from.
Nah, sorry missed that. Yes it's mental health, but surgery can sometimes lead to reduced demand on mental health services, so it's a balancing of costs. It is possible that it is cheaper to operate in some cases.
When I said mountain and molehills earlier, you do realise that we are talking of about 1:200,000 population per year having this surgery?
Indeed. Death is cheap.
Perhaps we should cease removing tumours from patients. Of maybe just the benign ones...?
The reason why they should pay for lifethreatening diseases is because sometimes, something can be done to help prevent the disease spreading further and becoming worse...
Surely preventing disease is more important (and benificial) to someone & their family than someone having a sex change? :rolleyes:
Wasn't the assertion that suicide may follow from a lack of surgery? Isn't that preventative medicine?
Personally, I think that would depend on how far gone the tumour is and how bad it is.
Is there any proof that transexuals will stop thinking about suicide after they've had their sex change?
Its a disfuctional section of the brain, I read. Something isn't produced enough when the person is in the womb and so they are born with it. The root cause is probably genetic, but its not certain.
As for surgery, I am unsure. I would rate it higher than purely cosmetic surgery, for the psychological reasons involved. However, it isnt life threatening, as people have said, so it takes a lower priority (though suicide rates are higher among transsexuals). Its not so much a matter of should we do it, because we do pay our taxes in, including transsexuals, but more its priority.
Might just be a local policy, but it's definatly in place- even on a bank holiday, at two in the morning, when you live in the sticks and nearest 24 garage is miles away, your child has been screaming for hours with an eardrum about to rupture, hospital conclude it's viral so antibiotics won't help, the advice is paracetamol and ibuprofen at maximum dose alternately every two hours, but no- we can't provide you with any... Helps create the opinion that the NHS is lacking resources, and goes towards the emotive response that until priority (in my opinion) needs are met, others shouldn't be.
It didn't fail. My main conclusion is any effective treatment for all people. Where it appears that funds don't allow any for all, the hair removal failed the rank highly in my (in all likelyhood emotively formed) priority list.
So, as an ethical question- is it not ok to forego the treatment of this very few, if the cost would go further spread around many with cheaper treatments? Purely hyperthetically, I say sod the few and save the many, only if I were to apply this to any situation that might affect me personally, 'sod the few' just doesn't hold up. Therefore, it's a good idea to not employ me to make these decisions
The full article is here.
It goes without saying that it comes alongside intensive psychotherapy.
But isn't that more to do with protecting the schizophrenic from doing something harmful - whether it be to themseleves or a member of public?