If you were in charge of the NHS what would you cut?

I`m not suggesting it should be banned - just not done at public expense. The NHS has limited resources and when people are dying while waiting for life saving heart operations (152 in Wales died after waiting more than 6 months: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23994943) I think its unfair to divert resources to what is basically elective cosmetic surgery.

The right to have a child is there so governments can`t ban you from having kids (i.e. China). It is NOT there so you can have your lifestyle choices paid for by everyone else

I'd cut the wages of GPs.

If you want to stand out from the crowd, you could suggest the NHS stops treating anyone with a terminal illness.

It shouldn't be a 'right', just like education or 'fun' that children are 'entitled' to.

Because cancer causes distress, as does a broken tibia or female circumcision, do we give these problems individual rights? No.

The overflow of 'rights' are what is destroying democracy. Most of the rights we take for granted are actually privileges. We've just become so far stuck in our socialist ways that we demand the highest quality of life and expect it to be provided by others for us on a plate, usually at their expense or loss of quality of life.

I am not some neo-primitive idiot who simply strives for survival of the fittest, but I think a lot of people really should reconsider the disgusting use of 'rights' by modern governments to convince people that they have an entitlement to anything that makes them feel warm and fuzzy. I don't want to discontinue IVF whatsoever, I just don't think it's an essential health problem confronting the current population. The money would be far better spent on supporting the private sector which would eventually cause a big decrease in the price of treatments like IVF via competition.

I really do suggest that you read some Ayn Rand. She might fundamentally change your perceptions on 'rights'.

GPs are not really paid directly by the NHS, they make their own money through business so it could be tough to do that!

Since heart disease seems to be the biggest killer in the UK would it not make sense for the government to invest more into it, like have more posts for cardiologists and surgeons and more specialist units for it. I know the feeling because my cousin died from a heart attack (and he lived a very healthy lifestyle he just got unlucky) but the hospital he was rushed too did not have the resources. Anyway like we are saying there is pointless areas where a lot of money is being funded but it could be used to deal with more frequent and long term threats to our population such as heart disease.

On a side note id try and make doctors particularly GPs become more stricter on what prescriptions they give out. On my work experience I remember a patient coming in (vaguely) who was a heroin addict, the doctor I was shadowing said that she gives a small dose a week to the patient of something like heroin because it will help wheen her of it rather than quitting cold turkey. However the patient finished the dose prescribed very early in the week so was suffering from withdrawal, I think the GP prescribed a tiny bit more but I asked why. Would it not be better to not give it so that the patient learns a lesson (which is harsh I know but perhaps it is for the best) but the GP said no the patient will just see another GP and do the same thing. Either way the patient will find a way to get more. So i think GPs should be a bit stricter in that sense and can potentially save money although it is harsh on the patient

As a person who works daily with heroin addicts, this approach would cost the state more, not less.

Methadone (the prescription alternative to heroin) is given because the only way that addicts can get money to buy their drugs is through commuting crime. That means a lot of money spent chasing them and putting them through the criminal justice system, not to mention the impact on the victims of the crime.

If one was to withhold the methadone in order: "to teach them a lesson" then the inevitable result would be the addict going out, mugging an old lady or something equally horrendous, and then using the money to buy smack. In the end, methadone is way cheaper....


Posted from TSR Mobile

I never thought of it like that, but there must be an alternative to giving them a harmful drug. I suppose there a clinics actually, I remembered there is one somewhere in my town thanks!

Methadone is not harmful compared with injecting yourself with dodgy heroin and stealing/prostituting yourself to fund it. Drug rehab clinics will do very similar services to that GP; inpatient stays are very very rare.

Oh I didn't mean stays but some form of advice/effort to help them quit their addiction or counseling!

Almost never works on its own, lovely idea though it is.