Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    A definite Nay, need operations to be specified before can be considered, but your logic is flawed. "Religious nature" would mean that you do not condone the alternative to blood transfusions used by Jehovahs witnesses. Mental health has been strongly linked in the case of sex change operations and therefore there are economic arguments to justify the cost to the state of said operations.

    Additionally, I disagree in principal, but those points need clarified.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    So burns victims shouldn't be eligible for cosmetic surgery?

    Gastric bands would reduce obesity rates, saving the health service in the long run.

    IVF morally should be allowed in my opinion

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Also Saoirses point has concerningly been ignored by some in this thread....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Also Saoirses point has concerningly been ignored by some in this thread....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I loved Rakas' shrugging it off by implying that it's okay as very few actually die
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This bill would probably take away treatment for a lot more than it intends to due to the very loose definition and in effect I think cranbrook_aspie is right in saying it would make abortion illegal except in exceptional circumstances.

    However even if you amend this, Gastric Bands are good for saving money as they reduce future health problems, the banning of IVF is mildly understandable however banning sex changes is ludicrous and would cause a lot of harm.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    No.

    One because you banned IVF
    Two because this would ban abortion.
    Three because you have banned sex change
    4 because you have banned plastic surgery with a wide brush (people who are burnt alive or in a really bad incident leaving them misfigured deserve plastic surgery.
    Five because it's fat shaming. Weight isn't just about 'eat less'
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    No.

    One because you banned IVF
    Two because this would ban abortion.
    Three because you have banned sex change
    4 because you have banned plastic surgery with a wide brush (people who are burnt alive or in a really bad incident leaving them misfigured deserve plastic surgery.
    Five because it's fat shaming. Weight isn't just about 'eat less'
    But Why should the taxpayer fund for someone to have a sex change ? . Its not essential and its just wasting money which could be used on people who actually need a serious operations and generally suffer from a serious condition that need elective surgery. The money saved by removing these types of surgery's will still be available in the NHS Budget and could be used to invest and to make available more life saving operations that aren't available on the NHS but are aboard ( I e certain cancer treatments
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    But Why should the taxpayer fund for someone to have a sex change ? . Its not essential and its just wasting money which could be used on people who actually need a serious operations and generally suffer from a serious condition that need elective surgery. The money saved by removing these types of surgery's will still be available in the NHS Budget and could be used to invest and to make available more life saving operations that aren't available on the NHS but are aboard ( I e certain cancer treatments
    But it will actually cost the NHS money. As many others have pointed out without sex Change operations there will be more self harm. Without gastric bands the issues with health later on in lif e will cost a lot more for the NHS.

    You are looking at the short term but ignoring the long term effects of what you are doing. And can you actually provide figures for what would be saved or are you just assuming that this would happen?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This BIll is far too vague, even though there are some operations and surgery which I feel should be restricted.

    So a Nay for me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    But it will actually cost the NHS money. As many others have pointed out without sex Change operations there will be more self harm. Without gastric bands the issues with health later on in lif e will cost a lot more for the NHS.

    You are looking at the short term but ignoring the long term effects of what you are doing. And can you actually provide figures for what would be saved or are you just assuming that this would happen?
    Self harm itself shouldn't cost the NHS much unless done poorly or in a silly way, even then, given it's a symptom rather than a condition in and of itself, it's like saying fever or vomiting costs the NHS.

    If we're talking cost to the NHS, I don't know the cost of sex change surgery, I expect rather a lot, but I would suggest that not doing it and then the person committing suicide, saving decades of medical expense, is probably cheaper than short term failed treatment of said suicidal tendencies.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Self harm itself shouldn't cost the NHS much unless done poorly or in a silly way, even then, given it's a symptom rather than a condition in and of itself, it's like saying fever or vomiting costs the NHS.

    If we're talking cost to the NHS, I don't know the cost of sex change surgery, I expect rather a lot, but I would suggest that not doing it and then the person committing suicide, saving decades of medical expense, is probably cheaper than short term failed treatment of said suicidal tendencies.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    From my research sex change surgery costs the NHS around 10-15 k per operations
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Self harm itself shouldn't cost the NHS much unless done poorly or in a silly way, even then, given it's a symptom rather than a condition in and of itself, it's like saying fever or vomiting costs the NHS.

    If we're talking cost to the NHS, I don't know the cost of sex change surgery, I expect rather a lot, but I would suggest that not doing it and then the person committing suicide, saving decades of medical expense, is probably cheaper than short term failed treatment of said suicidal tendencies.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And for the sake of simplicity that say each sex change operations costs the NHS exactly 10k and they do 1000 every year we are saving about £10 million a year from not providing them
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You said this bill would save money for the NHS, yet you're not specific with the costs of these sort of operations and don't take into account the toll on the general public. (maybe it's in your notes, but 2 of your links are not working) I may have a backward opinion to some of these operations, doesn't mean I don't recognise the damage that could be done to society if they were not funded by the NHS.

    I would like to see you put more detail on what you consider sensible non essential operations or how would they be determined and a specific costings of how much it is actually going to save the NHS, then I'll consider, for now it's a nay.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, gender reassignment surgery costs over £10,000 to carry out which is more expensive than counselling or not interfering, IVF is a way of the state paying people to have children when adoption eases the burden on state-funded social care, and the other types of surgery are mainly for personal reasons. I would like hazzer1998 to make allowances in the second reading for people who have been burnt, have suffered an injury that has left them needing cosmetic surgery to look normal, or women who elect to have a caesarean section during birth but I support the idea.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Aye, gender reassignment surgery costs over £10,000 to carry out which is more expensive than counselling or not interfering, IVF is a way of the state paying people to have children when adoption eases the burden on state-funded social care, and the other types of surgery are mainly for personal reasons. I would like hazzer1998 to make allowances in the second reading for people who have been burnt, have suffered an injury that has left them needing cosmetic surgery to look normal, or women who elect to have a caesarean section during birth but I support the idea.
    Given the Csec comment, why should they be given for non-medical reasons whilst IVF and sex changes should not?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given the Csec comment, why should they be given for non-medical reasons whilst IVF and sex changes should not?
    Hear Hear
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to abstain from voting mainly because of the way certain procedures are given priority over others. The NHS is underfunded as it is, privatisation is inevitable and so i don't think this is a major issue. Also, I don't believe the state should be paying for IVF or some of the other procedures listed. The Truth is the NHS is unsustainable and so is the illusion of free healthcare. People are put on long waiting lists for surgery and MRI scans, there's low morale among doctors and nurses because of low pay, hospitals are shut down because of budget cuts. All as a result of this government beauracracy controlling the NHS.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given the Csec comment, why should they be given for non-medical reasons whilst IVF and sex changes should not?
    C-Section birth reduce the risk of incontinence following birth, reduces the possibility of a prolapse of the uterus, limits heavy bleeding after birth, and in cases where the woman is in Labour for over 12 hours a C-Section birth will reduce strain on the pelvic floor, and bring about a more peaceful birth. Waiting in pain for 12 hours during Labour is a natural, non-life threatening process but it is not a pleasant experience and the stress hormones released can cause depression in the newborn baby.

    Not having a sex change does not cause further weakening of the pelvic floor, it does not cause incontinence, and it does not cause depression in an unborn baby. Natural birth is the most common type of birth but a C-Section birth is the type of birth that causes least amount of strain on the people involved, and is less painful; C-sections would be the norm if there was not a large cost with surgery, and the recovery time was not six weeks long.

    When 64,464 children are being looked after in various schemes, allowing IVF will give the possibility to children to childless couples at a cost the state. If IVF was restricted the alternative would be adoption which reduces the cost on the state by decreasing the number of children needing a loving home, and reducing IVF treatment. The families still receive a child but the state has one less child to look after, the child who is adopted is more able to develop in the warm surroundings of a caring couple than when being passed between different foster parents, and placed in social care homes; sometimes in different parts of the country.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I'm going to abstain from voting mainly because of the way certain procedures are given priority over others. The NHS is underfunded as it is, privatisation is inevitable and so i don't think this is a major issue. Also, I don't believe the state should be paying for IVF or some of the other procedures listed. The Truth is the NHS is unsustainable and so is the illusion of free healthcare. People are put on long waiting lists for surgery and MRI scans, there's low morale among doctors and nurses because of low pay, hospitals are shut down because of budget cuts. All as a result of this government beauracracy controlling the NHS.
    If you mean an insurance-based system with no state involvement is inevitable then that would appear to be contradicted by most of the developed world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    If you mean an insurance-based system with no state involvement is inevitable then that would appear to be contradicted by most of the developed world.
    like other Countries we could just properly fund our public health service.

    also should this go to division still including sex/gender reassignment then I'll not only vote no but put forward a bill first to the Government, then Party and if it's not taken up then as a pmb to have legislation specifically about sex/gender reassignment
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 10, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.