LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
I certainly take your point about what should be priority, and certainly the health service does too in that it is having to severely ration treatments, examinations and surgeries of all sorts at the moment. Where this mess has come from, given that billions of extra money has been put in to the system is a mystery, though from an uneducated guess I would say it is a combination of rises in staff pay (more than overdue, but taking up much of the extra budget), government pressure to achieve targets (in terms of how much is done) and I'm afraid the perpetual sickness of the health service, a level of inefficiency in its management which would be suicidal in a commercial business. Add to that a population which is aging quickly as a whole, plus enormous immigration, rising treatment and equipment costs as progress is made in researching new ways to deal with problems and by the same means new treatments for previously incurable conditions and it is simple to see what the reasons for overspends are.
What happens when the money becomes short, is that the low profile items are sidelined - this doesnt mean just SRS, but psychiatrics and other less visible aspects the recipients of which are not likely to complain or where they do complain need not be taken seriously - paediatrics for example. In the case of SRS, this is in short supply even when money is not tight - it is controlled in such a way that very few receive surgery each year - which is a good thing, as it means only the serious should receive it. As things stand today, my local health service administration has put a freeze on all funding for SRS for two years, though they wont admit it openly.
The thing with the health service though, is that it exists to provide for health for the nation - not for one or a group of aspects of health, but to deal with everything that affects the health of individuals and thus the whole, without value judgements as to what is affective and what is less affective - in principle at least. It is thus under as much duty to treat emotional problems as it is to treat heart disease, and under the same duty to provide treatment for an ingrowing toenail as it is for cancer. This all costs a lot of money of course, with the pay off in the early days being a fit, healthy and productive workforce - which isnt the case nowadays with our aging demographics.
From my personal point of view, I have worked for around twenty years, paying my insurance stamp and taxes throughout on the understanding that should I need the services then they will be available to me. It is now a little disappointing to hear that the services I need are not available therefore - but this is exactly the same disappointment experienced up and down the land by people with 40 and 50 years of insurance and tax payments, and not only in respect of the health service but in terms of almost everything they were promised in the post war years when these systems were set up. Were it a commercial contract that had been made and then defaulted on in this way, then lawsuits would be flying to force performance and claim compensation for breach.
Personally though, as I said at the start, if there is only a certain amount of money and thus treatments must be rationed, then I would rather see what funds are available go to more needy cases of life or death, and to treatments where there are definite and certain benefits to the person. This isnt to downplay the distress of those requiring treatment for transsexuality, but to recognise that some conditions and treatments take higher priority in the greater scheme of things in the same way that a surgeon is better employed in treating heart disease than in treating an ingrown toenail. In such a situation as we are in today, it is impossible to treat all, so it is necessary to get the best overall result for the maximum number of people.
Whether surgery is necessary for everyone who needs to transition is a question asked within the health service anyway, and the answer is not a general one but varies from case to case. Some are absolutely in requirement of it, for others its not important at all and in the middle are a great swathe of cases varying in degree between those two positions. For me personally, your point is well taken - it was never important for me to have surgery at the start of all this, but merely to be able to live as I wanted, be myself and be treated for who I really am, though now it is becoming necessary for me for the future. Others have different priorities and the point is that their distress is just as real as the distress of others who are suffering from other conditions and require treatment. Its important to understand that whilst for the likes of me it could be accounted as an option, for others it is necessary for their ongoing psychological health and even their survival.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
Financial Help for Transgender, are there any? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread