NHS what should it be for?

[Loosehead]

With the Virgin repair question in the news and below, I was wondering should the NHS exclude things that are not necessary generally? (or charge as if private)
eg
1 - Fertility treament
2 - Tattoo removal
3 - Sex changes
4 - Cosmetic surgery for vanity purposes
5 - hymen repair, of course!
anything else?

[Goodsoulette]

1)The infertility might be caused by an illness that was caused by having unprotected sex, so some blame can ba apportioned even if it was an illness. I think that fertility treatment is fundamentally wrong. Im all for a few pills to help women ovulate but the cost of IVF is extortionate and not a justifible treatment on the NHS. Plenty of unwanted children that need homes and loving parents. I know a woman who had to raise 50 grand for her cancer drugs (or get a million signatures), that was a life saving drug and that should not be put after an inability to conceive.

2) Not at all

3) Maybe.

4) some should. think breast reduction/reshaping, moob reduction surgery and removal of excess skin (like a tummy tuck or a body lift) should be available.

5) errrrr

[Goodsoulette]

oh and if I lost my eyes, my legs or my uterus and was asked whoch two I could have back. I would go for the legs and the eyes.

[alijangra]

What utter sh!te, just because you cant afford thousands for treatment you wouldnt be able to afford to bring up a child?! My sister is a nurse and her husband a coast guard watch officer, they cannot afford to pay for treatment yet Im quite sure they could make fantastic parents. Also, my sister had pelvic inflammatory disease (not caused by an STD!!!) that caused her fallopian tubes to block. Try working with people who are having fertility problems and see the anguish and heartbreak that they endure. I would like to see you all have the same opinion if you were put in that position.

[smudge]

Blimey hold your hair on alijangra! I didn't say they were my thoughts, far from it! I said some people could argue that people who couldn't afford treatment shouldn't have children.

Also, I have been there with our eldest daughter, but didn't like to say on here as some people know her.

She had trouble conceiving & went through the mill every month. However, she was given clomid which eventually helped her to become pregnant. She gave birth to a beautiful baby girl, then went through the same anguish again later, so had the same treatment. She gave birth to another beautiful baby girl, three years to the day that the first one was born.

So I really do sympathise with any woman who has fertility problems. That's why my No. 1 answer read Yes!

[NikkiB]

1 Fertility Treatment - funded but with certain conditions
2 Tattoo removal - I had my little red devil removed privately by a laser clinic. Why the hell should tax-payers have to rectify my cosmetic pecadillos?
3 Sex change - Funded under certain conditions
4 Cosmetic surgery - only for what would medically be termed extreme disfigurement. Wanting higher cheekbones or a planed down nose are not enough.
5 Absolutely 100% no. If it continues, demand will grow, pressure will increase on girls and very soon that other monstrosity ,clitoris removal, will begin wholesale.

[Oneeyedvic]

alijangra - what is wrong with adoption. I am sure they would make great parents.

[jno]

good question... No (infertility may be a condition but I don't think it's an illness, not the sort the NHS was set up to deal with anyway); No; Yes (you do have to be pretty ill to want to change your sex); No and No.

[naomi24]

The NHS should exclude all of them, except perhaps sex changes, but then only in certain circumstances.

[Dassie]

As the NHS is always short of money, I say No to all of them. There are much more deserving cases of illneses that should have priority especially where the NHS can't afford the drugs at the moment and it's a postcode lottery as to whether you live or die.

[naomi24]

Dassie, I say sex changes only because some babies are born with problems. Perhaps 'sex change' is the wrong term for such cases.

[flip_flop]

1 - No.
2 - No.
3 - No.
4 - No.
5 - No.

The only one I would waiver on is number 1 - but even then I would say you get one shot of IVF gratis and thereafter you would have to pay.

As for sex changes - I wholeheartedly agree with Loosehead: I don't go along with all this 'in the wrong body' pony either.

And anyway, cutting a dogs nuts off doesn't make it a bitch. It makes it a dog with no nuts.

[anotheoldgit]

Virgin repair????

Blimey has Richard Branson got his sticky fingers in this pie now? (excuse the pun)

[its_me_baby]

I think u should be able to have fertility for free, my sister waited for it for 6 years and couldn't afford to go private for something thats not guarenteed to work. She would have loved to adopt but doesn't meet the criteria for it, i don't agree with China_Doll saying if they can't afford ivf then they can't afford kids cause thats bull.

DO YOU HAVE KIDS CHINA
cause if u do then ur selfish

if u don't lets hope when u want them u can have them ain't it.

[taliesin238]

This is a real hard one!! I DO beleive that these sort of things should be available on NHS for extreme cases!! The thing with the NHS it is outdated. IT needs a real good sprucing up into the 21st century!! People are living longer and the type of medical care that people get now is completely different to that of what the NHS was initially created for!!!

[Sweep2k]

You could argue that the meaning of life is to be born, procreate and the die.

I appreciate that infertility is not always caused by illness but is that the criterion for free meedical care now? Does that mean if you walk into a door and suffer a detached retina you should be expected to pay for it yourself?

The problem with removing fertility treatment from the NHS is that you're effectively rationing the right to start a family on the basis of class. The wealthy will be able to afford treatment and have children. For the poor, tough. Adopt someone else's.

Not sure that sits very easily with me.

[Oneeyedvic]

its_me_baby Here is a list of criteria as to who can adopt: http://www.fosteringinbrightonandhove.org.uk/i ndex.cfm?request=c1136857

Could you tell me how your sister doesn't meet the criteria?

sweep - I'm not sure I follow your argument. The wealthy will be able to afford treatment and therefore have a family. The poor will be able to adopt and also therefore have a family. Net result - both classes have families.

[its_me_baby]

my sister was turned down for adoption cause her partner has a criminal record from just before they got together for abh. He was young silly and thought he could fight the world but now has a f/t job and they own there house. They were offered fostering mind but they turned that down which i know i wouldn't have as any kids are better than none in my eyes as they all need love and attentionj

[bundleone]

My son foolishly had both arms tattooed when he was a teenager, when he grew up it cost �1000 for ten treatments to have them removed,

[China Doll]

its_me... I never said anything about being not being able to afford children if you can't afford IVF.

I said that it should not be available on the NHS because it is not an illness that can be cured or treated.

If that makes me selfish in your eyes then ok, I can live with that quite happily.

[Reverandfunk]

Basic ESSENTIAL healthcare

tattoo removal - no
fertility - no