Where do you draw the line regarding treatment by the NHS?
Discussion
The thought was prompted by today's reports of a womb transplant between sisters in a 16-hour operation. I well understand the trauma around infertility through personal experience but it made me wonder how and where boundaries are drawn now and in the future, given almost infinite demand.
Anyone with any insight into this who can explain?
Anyone with any insight into this who can explain?
CheesecakeRunner said:
it should be noted that this was not an NHS funded operation. A charity, Womb Transplant UK, paid the NHS for the use of their facilities and the surgeons. I suspect future surgeries would also be private.
I had read but what happens in the future? Will people decide it is their “right” to have this op and expect NHS to pay?I’ve no issue if this is always a private procedure but in this case NHS resources were used (and I accept paid for) so what was not done in the facility whilst this procedure was being carried out. What could have the doctors and other staff have been doing whilst they were carrying out this procedure?
Not provided on NHS
From press release -
Developer Professor Richard Smith said: “This is a first for the UK, following over 25 years of research, and is only possible thanks to the recipient's sister who came forward and was willing to donate.
"It is still very early days but, if all continues to go well, we hope the recipient will continue to progress, and be in a position to have a baby in the coming years. We are grateful to the charity Womb Transplant UK for funding the transplant and to our highly talented colleagues for their time and expertise over many years.
"Any further transplants will depend on the willingness of suitable donors and funding for the operations, which comes through Womb Transplant UK. However, we very much hope we will be able to help other women born without or with underdeveloped wombs in the near future."
So although performed in NHS hospital, transplant was funded by a charity. Nevertheless NHS likely to pick up the ongoing tab for immunosuppression, monitoring and if successful some very complex obstetric care.
From press release -
Developer Professor Richard Smith said: “This is a first for the UK, following over 25 years of research, and is only possible thanks to the recipient's sister who came forward and was willing to donate.
"It is still very early days but, if all continues to go well, we hope the recipient will continue to progress, and be in a position to have a baby in the coming years. We are grateful to the charity Womb Transplant UK for funding the transplant and to our highly talented colleagues for their time and expertise over many years.
"Any further transplants will depend on the willingness of suitable donors and funding for the operations, which comes through Womb Transplant UK. However, we very much hope we will be able to help other women born without or with underdeveloped wombs in the near future."
So although performed in NHS hospital, transplant was funded by a charity. Nevertheless NHS likely to pick up the ongoing tab for immunosuppression, monitoring and if successful some very complex obstetric care.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Killboy said:
How is what the NHS is allowed to provide decided?
NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence make those decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_f...
Isn't this the crux of the whole problem with the NHS? It was designed in the post war world to give everyone free medical care. In those days basic treatments known at the time.
As science and medicine has developed more and more is known and more treatments became available but each one at a hefty cost.
This has continued for all these years and then everything else becomes "medical" so requiring a "treatment" so the ADHDs of this world, fertility etc.
We keep adding to the burden through "conditions", increasing population etc and adding to the cost and expect it all to be affordable and wonderful. Add to this negligence claims, bureaucratic and other inefficiency etc and the NHS will never be fit for purpose unless almost every penny of tax payer funding was diverted to it and I doubt it would work well even then. Striping it back to bare basics would be better.
As science and medicine has developed more and more is known and more treatments became available but each one at a hefty cost.
This has continued for all these years and then everything else becomes "medical" so requiring a "treatment" so the ADHDs of this world, fertility etc.
We keep adding to the burden through "conditions", increasing population etc and adding to the cost and expect it all to be affordable and wonderful. Add to this negligence claims, bureaucratic and other inefficiency etc and the NHS will never be fit for purpose unless almost every penny of tax payer funding was diverted to it and I doubt it would work well even then. Striping it back to bare basics would be better.
Tom8 said:
Isn't this the crux of the whole problem with the NHS? It was designed in the post war world to give everyone free medical care. In those days basic treatments known at the time.
As science and medicine has developed more and more is known and more treatments became available but each one at a hefty cost.
This has continued for all these years and then everything else becomes "medical" so requiring a "treatment" so the ADHDs of this world, fertility etc.
We keep adding to the burden through "conditions", increasing population etc and adding to the cost and expect it all to be affordable and wonderful. Add to this negligence claims, bureaucratic and other inefficiency etc and the NHS will never be fit for purpose unless almost every penny of tax payer funding was diverted to it and I doubt it would work well even then. Striping it back to bare basics would be better.
Not keen on all those quote marks tbh, ADHD can be a very debilitating condition. It's not just kids who can't behave, it effects every aspect of your life.As science and medicine has developed more and more is known and more treatments became available but each one at a hefty cost.
This has continued for all these years and then everything else becomes "medical" so requiring a "treatment" so the ADHDs of this world, fertility etc.
We keep adding to the burden through "conditions", increasing population etc and adding to the cost and expect it all to be affordable and wonderful. Add to this negligence claims, bureaucratic and other inefficiency etc and the NHS will never be fit for purpose unless almost every penny of tax payer funding was diverted to it and I doubt it would work well even then. Striping it back to bare basics would be better.
ZedLeg said:
Not keen on all those quote marks tbh, ADHD can be a very debilitating condition. It's not just kids who can't behave, it effects every aspect of your life.
I was going to say much the same. ADHD is something that has been shown time and again to be good blue to treat, as treatment is vastly cheaper than the economic and health impacts of none treatment.This, however, seems to be actively damaging someone’s health (surgery, immunosuppressants etc.) in order to do something that is not improving someone’s quality of life. Given that people are struggling to access treatment at the moment for many things, in part because of lack of medical staff, this seems extremely questionable.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Is this another Malthusian anti population thread? Seems like a great use of public resources to me. It helps people who want children to have them.
A few places I'd draw the line before this.
In this country there are plenty of alternatives to become a parent.A few places I'd draw the line before this.
This isn’t a first, it’s happened around 100 times already elsewhere in the world. There has to be an operation to effectively reverse the procedure after one or two children and the NHS may well be called upon to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.
Edited by craig1912 on Wednesday 23 August 16:35
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Is this another Malthusian anti population thread? Seems like a great use of public resources to me. It helps people who want children to have them.
A few places I'd draw the line before this.
If you can't afford to pay for it yourself you can't afford children.A few places I'd draw the line before this.
Tom8 said:
If you can't afford to pay for it yourself you can't afford children.
If you can't afford a helicopter rescue you can't afford to go hiking, if you can't afford an ambulance, fire engine and road closure you can't afford to drive a car, if you can't afford a heart bypass or cancer surgery well bad luck should you need it. I'm not a great fan of the NHS and I'm sure there are better models of funding healthcare but in the context of socialised medicine and a society where we help those who need it then this seems a good cause.
It is also a relatively modest £25,000 which can be paid back over a lifetime of taxation and other worthy contributions, but might mean a young woman having to choose between children and university or a house.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Wednesday 23 August 16:59
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Is this another Malthusian anti population thread? Seems like a great use of public resources to me. It helps people who want children to have them.
A few places I'd draw the line before this.
What things would fall above the line on your list, out of interest?A few places I'd draw the line before this.
Murph7355 said:
What things would fall above the line on your list, out of interest?
Well I would imagine what was spent on covid could transplant every womb in the country, but that's done.Wantonly self destructive stuff like obesity, alcoholism and drug abuse paid for by the user.
High risk activities like motorcycling and sky diving having additional insurance.
People who go to the GP for a chat making a contribution.
Elective surgeries like boob jobs and sex changes.
And since I'm king for the day, net zero and a load of diversity programmes could go too.
Not that I'm really arguing for those things. I ride a motorbike and like mountains, and a drink (not all at the same time) but these seem like things that could be cut before this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff