|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:55 PM
Posts: 1,121,
Visits: 1,737
|
|
| Your argument is based on the assumption that being infertile is less painful (mentally) than having a facial disfigurement- mine is based on the assumption that I cannot possibly understand how painful it is and that both should have access to treatment- or not. I had already specified "life threatening", as opposed to "life impairing".
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:42 PM
Posts: 1,178,
Visits: 1,030
|
|
| There is no physical trauma involved, no threat to the life no physical imparment of life. What there is is a mental state that needs to be addressed. The answer to this is counselling, not surgery in the 'hope' it might go right. certainly not as an immeadiate option (as which it is presented) As it happens I beleive better mental health services should be available. The NHS was not however designed to provide these. Comes under the area of 'uneccessary' medical procedure. The patient is likely to be at more risk of permament imparement and physical pain with said treatment than without. Therefore the procedure should not be carried out. As I said before depends what you count as 'neccessary' you decided to call that statement nit picking.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:55 PM
Posts: 1,121,
Visits: 1,737
|
|
So coping with a disfigurement should also be dealt with through counselling as it is equally non life threatening, and in the surgery is often more serious.
Personally I pay taxes so that everyone can have whatever treatment their Doctor decides is appropriate, but if we're going to start cutting things then cut everything that's non life threatening and not just pick on one type of condition.
|
|
|
|
|
Initiate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:56 PM
Posts: 5,
Visits: 23
|
|
| How much councelling is involved in fertility treatment? I'm just curious how much the patient is encouraged to explore all the options before undergoing treatment. I know breeding is a biological imperitive. But I still believe that the world would be a better place if there was more appreciation for people who managed to have a positive effect on a child from birth to adulthood and less on somebody who simply managed to prove life gifted them with fertility, and that they could find somebody to have sex with. I also believe that having children should be viewed as a privilege, not a right.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:42 PM
Posts: 1,178,
Visits: 1,030
|
|
| In those cases where the disfigurment it is not causing a physical imparment, or pain as they usually are. Thats how its usually dealt with, except generally they get very little counselling. Yup Id say that the NHS should not fund anything that does not redress a day to day physically imparing condition or a life threatening condition. you keep trying to make my argument into something which is solely about life threatening conditions please stop it. I'll also point out that a good deal of IVF goes to those beyond natural child rearing age. Yup its also about cost and resources. But mainly its just about the fact that the last thing we need is more bloody people. Which is something you appear to disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:55 PM
Posts: 1,121,
Visits: 1,737
|
|
This planet can easily support it's human population if we'd just stop crippling it to make fast bucks for rich people. Why should the majority make a sacrifice so that a minority can keep making more money than they know what to do with?
However I do agree that IVF for people who are past child bearing age is a waste of money- if you choose not to have children, then change your mind 'cos your body clock is ticking, then tough- but then if people weren't forced to choose between career or family (to line more fat wallets) there'd be less middle aged couple's facing that dilemma.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:55 PM
Posts: 1,121,
Visits: 1,737
|
|
Flannel I'm not trying to make your argument into anything.
My argument is that if we base provision purely on economics and need then all non life threatening procedures would have to be paid for privately, as it's impossible to objectively drop some but not others.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:42 PM
Posts: 1,178,
Visits: 1,030
|
|
| *nods* Im not sure I know precise enough details of the economic situation to discuss that fully in regards to the level of care we could administer. However if there has to be a choice and it was 'there' then I suppose I would rather the NHS provided only essential services and provided them to everyone than ignored some essential services in favour of IVF, pure cosmetic surgery, hair implants (or A.N.similar procedure) Personally I'd rather we didn't allow anyone to have IVF at all. We simply are not a responsible enough species at the moment to overide what I hope is nature attempts to stop us spawning. However such facist dictates would mean I would need to be king of the world. A fine plan, but one to which I suspect there might be intial resistance.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:55 PM
Posts: 1,121,
Visits: 1,737
|
|
| I'm pretty sure we're not responsible enough (as a species)to be doing most of what we do, which is probably why any solution which puts common sense before profit will never be accepted.
|
|
| |