Transsexual on Hunger Strike

Panzerkampfwagen said:

The NHS has refused to pay for lifesaving cancer treatments because they are too expensive...

Click to expand...

For that reason,I can't see why they would or should pay for this.BTW Is NHS what Obama's trying to push in the US or is it something else.

CRAZYWOMAN said:

For that reason,I can't see why they would or should pay for this.BTW Is NHS what Obama's trying to push in the US or is it something else.

Click to expand...

Hey in California companies are forced to pay for the sex change operations of their employees...California considers it a health issue.

SoldierOfSoul said:

Hey in California companies are forced to pay for the sex change operations of their employees...California considers it a health issue.

Click to expand...

I live California and never new,But I'm not surpriced,I just think a person with cancer should be on the top of the list.

CRAZYWOMAN said:

I live California and never new,But I'm not surpriced,I just think a person with cancer should be on the top of the list.

Click to expand...

I agree, but it seems the most important things to the government of California are only those things of the most abhorrent behaviour, no offense to your state, I just think your reps are despicable.

CRAZYWOMAN said:

My guess is the name or sex they want to be called.I think it sounds a little cold and heartless to someone an it.Not saying I never called someone an it without thinking.

Click to expand...

You can change the ornaments, but its still a Christmas tree.

A person is the sex that thier chromosones say they are. He will always be a he, she will always be a she.
"It" is the easiest way to describe him.
A he that doesn't want to be a he.

Sorry, but I believe the national health care system should only provide for needed medical procedures. If it won't kill them in short run or long run, it shouldn't be treated.

Billnew said:

You can change the ornaments, but its still a Christmas tree.

A person is the sex that thier chromosones say they are. He will always be a he, she will always be a she.
"It" is the easiest way to describe him.
A he that doesn't want to be a he.

Click to expand...

So a women born with Swyer's Syndrome or Full Androgen Insenstivity, despite the fact they had female on their birth certificate and grew up as female should have the gender changed on their documents to be "male", since they have an XY chromosome pair? And does this make males (complete with penis and testes) that have XX male syndrome females because they have XX chromosomes? And what about all the people that have neither an XX or XY chromosome pair but have X0, XXY, and XXXY (and I guess we better not even mention mosaics, that in some cells have an XX pair and in other cells an XY pair)?

Billnew said:

Sorry, but I believe the national health care system should only provide for needed medical procedures. If it won't kill them in short run or long run, it shouldn't be treated.

Click to expand...

So schizophrenia, depression, and other non-lethal diseases should not be treated? People shouldn't seek help for minor broken bones? And where do you draw the line? If someone has an ear infection, should that be treated by the NHS -- while it technically could kill you the risk is extremely low.

Billnew said:

You can change the ornaments, but its still a Christmas tree.

Aperson is the sex that their chromosomes say they are. He will always be a he, she will always be a she.
"It" is the easiest way to describe him.
A he that doesn't want to be a he.

Sorry, but I believe the national health care system should only provide for needed medical procedures. If it won't kill them in short run or long run, it shouldn't be treated.

Click to expand...

With this thinking you would call him a male or he,Not an it.I already said that if their not covering cancer treatment they shouldn't cover his operation.Which doesn't make me think much of a national health care system that I believe Obama's trying to push on us.

Morcova said:

Or it could do something wild and crazy... and get a job and pay for itself.

Click to expand...

I think that's a bit too much to ask for people who do crap like this. I'd rather fork out money for a woman who's jobless w/3 kids that's actually trying, isntead of trying to support a freak of nature who feels the need to add parts they weren't born with.

I think this is an issue that needs to be worked out by doctors, psychologists, and other medical professionals. It's a complicated one that requires study, not just knee-jerk reactions.

Morcova said:

Or it could do something wild and crazy... and get a job and pay for itself.

Click to expand...

Or SHE could do what most people do when their insurance refuses to pay for a procedure, sue, appeal etc.. AND being working at finding other ways to pay for what they hope to get.

People constantly appeal the decisions of their insurance companies. She is no different, no lazier, than anyone else seeking to get their medical care covered.

Billnew said:

Sorry, but I believe the national health care system should only provide for needed medical procedures. If it won't kill them in short run or long run, it shouldn't be treated.

Click to expand...

I believe insurance (be it private or public) pays based on a far more complicated set of standards. Keeping someone alive wouldn't actually be the priority unless the treatment has a high rate of success, and the patient can look forward to a return to a reasonable quality of life.

As another poster pointed out treatments don't just go to the critically injured or ill. My grandson had a minor palate problem, it wasn't life threatening, but it did sometimes cause feeding problems when he was small. Was it wrong for public medical insurance to cover the treatment?

wanderingone said:

I believe insurance (be it private or public) pays based on a far more complicated set of standards. Keeping someone alive wouldn't actually be the priority unless the treatment has a high rate of success, and the patient can look forward to a return to a reasonable quality of life.

As another poster pointed out treatments don't just go to the critically injured or ill. My grandson had a minor palate problem, it wasn't life threatening, but it did sometimes cause feeding problems when he was small. Was it wrong for public medical insurance to cover the treatment?

Click to expand...

Guess he thinks if a woman has breast cancer it should just be hack them off, or sometimes hack one off. After all no woman ever died because she was missing a breast.

And any dental other than just yanking the a tooth out. Let them gum their food.

What is the reasoning behind denying a life saving cancer treatment? Is it experimental, are there other health complications that make the risk unacceptable? Do you spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on treatments for someone who isn't expected to live for more than a year or two even if the treatment is successful?

On the other hand we have a person, otherwise healthy, who is in sever mental distress becauss they believe they are the wrong sex.

Panzerkampfwagen said:

If the NHS performs something elective like this, but denies life-saving cancer treatments, well, there's something wrong with the system.

Click to expand...

wanderingone said:

Or SHE could do what most people do when their insurance refuses to pay for a procedure, sue, appeal etc.. AND being working at finding other ways to pay for what they hope to get.

People constantly appeal the decisions of their insurance companies. She is no different, no lazier, than anyone else seeking to get their medical care covered.

Click to expand...

Apparently the insurance company doesn't cover elective procedures like this. I fail to see what it thinks it's going to get out of this.

Panzerkampfwagen said:

There's lots of stories of the NHS denying people cancer treatment.

Here's one where they wouldn't pay for the cutting edge thing that costs three times as much, but seems to work better and be less invasive.

Here's one where they deny certain kidney drugs because they aren't a cost effective use of resources.

I don't think surgery like this is really a cost effective use of resources, especially in light of the fact that this person wants what amounts to cosmetic surgery that would cost enough to provide two people with a prostate cancer treatment. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to provide this person with counseling to help him to accept his body instead of forking over tens of thousands of pounds for a cosmetic surgery when that money would be better spent on lifesaving cancer treatment?

Click to expand...

Actually, since you can't even get this treatment for prostate cancer in the US (FDA approval is not expected prior to 2010/2011), I'm not sure that it is fair to criticize the NHS for not funding it. From what I've read, this is an experimental procedure still and, while it shows promise, there are still questions about it's long term effectiveness and side effects. No insurance company in the US will be willing to fund this procedure until after it becomes FDA approved, so there is more than a year wait. Similarly, from what I can find, most US insurance companies also won't pay for the kidney medicines that the NHS also will not cover -- so while I agree it is something that should be looked into, again it merely makes the NHS comparable to US insurance companies.

Further, as far as transsexuals, there is no counseling that has been proven to help, much less cure, people with Gender Identity Disorder. Surgery combined with hormone therapy is the only treatment that has any real success -- and studies indicate the success rate of surgery/hormones is over 90% and possibly over 98%.

Panzerkampfwagen said:

My answer would be to let her starve, quite frankly.

It looks like they're going to knuckle under to her demands, though.

This is of course, the nation that brought us the welfare for people that are "too fat to work."

Heh.

Click to expand...

It's a shame when people look for solutions to what they think ails them in all the wrong places. This person needs our compassion and prayers. Lord, have mercy!

Morcova said:

Or it could do something wild and crazy... and get a job and pay for itself.

Click to expand...

According to the article, she had already paid 25,000 pounds, works in IT and needed the NHS to pick up the rest. Sounds like she's already made a significant investment, though I agree if it's an optional elective surgery, it should be independently funded. But it's not as though this is somebody sitting on a street corner not bothering to do anything for themselves.

feral said:

According to the article, she had already paid 25,000 pounds, works in IT and needed the NHS to pick up the rest. Sounds like she's already made a significant investment, though I agree if it's an optional elective surgery, it should be independently funded. But it's not as though this is somebody sitting on a street corner not bothering to do anything for themselves.

Click to expand...

So the taxpayers should pay for the rest? I'm not following that logic.

SoldierOfSoul said:

Hey in California companies are forced to pay for the sex change operations of their employees...California considers it a health issue.

Click to expand...

It arguably is a health issue, just like depression is a health issue. The decision to have sex change is not just some whim or odd desire. People who want a sex change in most cases (there's always outliers), are for all intents and purposes the other sex in their minds. I recall some studies that present evidence that there is actually physical differences in the brain (i.e. a man who wishes to be a woman has a more "female" brain). The conflict between what their mind tells them they are and what they physically are can cause serious issues with depression that can lead to things like self harm and suicide. I'm not aware of any sort of therapy that can address that. The only thing that works is a full on sex change.