Donate SIGN UP

Could this money have been better spent?

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 16:14 Fri 31st Dec 2010 | News
18 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/384vpau

Should this woman have been allowed £8,000 legal aid to fight for the right to have a breast implants on the NHS, after already receiving £60,000 for a gender swap operation?

There are plenty of women who do not have much breast, but they aren't suicidal, they just accept what nature has given them.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Of course it could be better spent.
-- answer removed --
Yes it could have been better spent - and it should have been better spent.
Isn't that what legal aid is there for?

To allow people who cannot afford lawyers to get justice through the courts so that the law does not end up being a tool of those that can afford it.

You may not like the result but that's tough - the fact that she won vindicates the decision to grant the legal aid
They say that when men reach the age of 50 they develop breasts spontaneously. If he had only waited a couple of more years a lot of money could have been saved.

As for gender change this could have been tackled by a head shrink to make them feel comfortable in the body that nature has given them rather than trying to live up to a perverted fantasy.
Outrageous!!! I am not happy being wrinkled and only 4 feet 8 tall. Do you think I could have a facelift and some stretching on the NHS please. Oh yes and when I have had that done could I have some body sculpting done cos I am not too happy with my shape either. Come to think of it I am pretty awful all round maybe I could have £8000 to spend cos I know that would make me feel loads better .
-- answer removed --
Whether or not the decision originally that this op could take place is/was justified, the fact is that the NHS is currently facing unbelievable financial challenges - my employer alone had to save £25m in the last 6 months of this financial year, and so any non-urgent operations and procedures are having to be delayed or postponed, there is no choice, there is no money.
Whilst so many other people are having operations deferred, why should this person be any different? - whilst NHS workers are losing their jobs left right and centre to help meet these Government reduction targets, not everyone can have what was promised to them a few months back.
The article doesn't say it's been cancelled, it says that there is no money for it - it doesn't say "ever" - it would be helpful to know what the letter deferrring the operation actually said.
Question Author
Wow you are dicing with death EDDIE.

Why, I can't even admit I laughed out loud, not with my fan-club.
Eddie51

I'm ashamed to say that I'll be passing that joke off as my own at a party we're going to later tonight...

Un-PC...but funny.
-- answer removed --
Question Author
sp1814

Me thinks you speak with forked tongue.

You have in the past nailed your PC flag firmly to the mast.

You cannot now chose what un-PC matters are open for ridicule and which are not.
legal aid is irrelevant. The NHS is not for cosmetic surgery (well not for vanity) and deviant reconfiguration. If these deviants want surgery they should pay themselves. I can't undrstand how this is even a court case. I's like me suing the Butchers for not selling roses. Perlease!
They manage to pay for their own ops in Thailand...
legal aid isn't irrelevant, it's what the question - and the Mail article - are about. I can't see how money could be better spent than on achieving justice for someone who couldn't otherwise afford it.
OK it's the subject of the question but legal aid is a smoke screen. The real issue is why is the NHS even doing this sort of thing. How can you sue an entity for not providing something that it does not provide? That's the real issue?
start your own thread then, Geezer, don't try to hijack aog's with angles that he wan't asking about (much). Shame on you!
...and, as I say in my post above, whilst other people's operations and non-urgent procedures are being deferred into the next financial year because the NHS HAS to save money, why should this one be any different?

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Could this money have been better spent?

Answer Question >>