FabSwingers.com forum: Should the nhs pay for trasgender fertility treatment ?

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

Changing gender can often leave people infertile , so should the nhs pay to keep their eggs or sperm frozen in order that they can have their own family after transition ?

It seems the equalities commission is suing nhs England because only a quarter of the nhs clinical commissioning groups offer this service for free to the trangeneder patients .

So what do you think ?

Should the nhs be sued for not offering it to all transgender patients ?

Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Having just seen this story on the news , it’s interesting to see that even some people in the trans community think this is a step too far . With the treatment to transition , hormones and surgery already there , this seems a bit much to expect .

Over to you .....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

That is a very tricky subject and I can see both sides of it. Suing the NHS is not going to anyone any favours though.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the NHS should be allowed to concentrate on keeping us alive.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/12/18 19:25:44]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennythelionMan
over a year ago

Derby

Don't think we can afford it when many with life threatening illness struggle to get treatment.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another anti trans post in less than 48 hours?

What’s with the hate A, common buddy, it’s 2018, almost 2019

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennythelionMan
over a year ago

Derby

If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"Another anti trans post in less than 48 hours?

What’s with the hate A, common buddy, it’s 2018, almost 2019

What are you talking about?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

Whatever this costs it will be so infrequent to be a drop in the bucket overall.

Your anti-trans attitude is showing, OP. Just get over it. It's horrible.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hubnwife_36dd_ukCouple
over a year ago

chester

No.

The Equalities commission just loves to spend public money pursuing its own remit.

Check out how much they spent trying to persecute Ashers Bakery when even Peter Tatchell said it was a case too far!

Go tell the parents of a child turned down for an expensive drug treatment because of cash shortages that that bunch of busybodies have money to waste AND want to have a say in where the NHS spends its money.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

is this means tested as in if you can partly afford it then you should?

because the last thing we really want is people going to back street butchers and ending up with the sewn together look sported by a moon walking pop star from the 80s

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!"

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hubnwife_36dd_ukCouple
over a year ago

chester

"Whatever this costs it will be so infrequent to be a drop in the bucket overall.

Your anti-trans attitude is showing, OP. Just get over it. It's horrible. "

And your "We're a victim" attitude is showing.

All the drops in the bucket add up.

After all if we don't care about the drops then why bitch when somebody nicks a few grand off them in a small scale fiddle or overcharges just a wee bit for drugs/supplies. After all its only a drop in the bucket.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets "

Why would you have a sanitary bin in the men's toilets?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Suing the nhs is wrong on any level, it’s effectively suing the tax payer. Unless someone incurs massive costs due to negligence then I fail to see how financial gain will help rectify the problem. Another example of political correctness gone wrong. If you want to have an operation but u know u don’t want one of the possible side effects, then don’t have the operation, don’t do it (probably at the tax payers expense) then try to get money off of the state

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets

Why would you have a sanitary bin in the men's toilets?"

Transgender users of said public toilet

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anti - trans, anti-gay/homophobic, racist, anti-everything. It's what you get brandished if you have an opinion on any so called touchy subject and you get vilified for it. The perfect paradox.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

yes. different things come out of dofferent budgets its not a case of deciding between a cancer patient and fertility patient. If there are fertility clinics (which there are) then yes they should be open to anyone who wants a baby. Thankfully adoption services are no longer discrimative. The thing with you op os your an older person and cant get your head round the modern world

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets "

A serious, balanced news article on the topic of transgender is just that. Reading said article and then talking about it is not by definition trans phobic.

Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uriousgeorge82Man
over a year ago

exmouth

To be honest it disgusts me that i have had medical issues since birth birn with hyperspadias and also have chordee curved down cock ive also had stragglated testicles when i was 21 which were repaired which however has left me with a low sperm count and and yet the Nhs kept saying no to me but yet i see gay couples who chose to be gay be allowed fertility treatment its a joke and disgusting and very unfair in the people who generally need assistance

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

"To be honest it disgusts me that i have had medical issues since birth birn with hyperspadias and also have chordee curved down cock ive also had stragglated testicles when i was 21 which were repaired which however has left me with a low sperm count and and yet the Nhs kept saying no to me but yet i see gay couples who chose to be gay be allowed fertility treatment its a joke and disgusting and very unfair in the people who generally need assistance "
chose to be gay

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anti - trans, anti-gay/homophobic, racist, anti-everything. It's what you get brandished if you have an opinion on any so called touchy subject and you get vilified for it. The perfect paradox. "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets

A serious, balanced news article on the topic of transgender is just that. Reading said article and then talking about it is not by definition trans phobic.

Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

Not at all, I happen to be one of those who drink his coffee black

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I see where you are coming from,but I'm not sure people choose to be Gay.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You can get weight loss surgery and counselling on the NHS so I dont see why you shouldn't be able to change your gender.

Not arsed about my taxes at all. More arsed about cunty business and wealthy citizens NOT paying their dues.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anti - trans, anti-gay/homophobic, racist, anti-everything. It's what you get brandished if you have an opinion on any so called touchy subject and you get vilified for it. The perfect paradox. "

now isnt that interesting

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

Not at all, I happen to be one of those who drink his coffee black

Ok, but how does the asking of this question make the OP transphobic? What am I missing?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *SAchickWoman
over a year ago

Hillside desolate

Then you should be arguing for more people to get help with fertility issues, not saying that because you didn't get it nobody should. Also, people don't choose to be gay.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Someone may or may not chose to be gay, but by choosing to be in a gay relationship they are making having kids tricky to say the least! That’s what I think is being meant

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham

I don't think fertility treatment should be funded on the NHS at all. Having children isn't a right and already many people are excluded from treatment on the NHS. For example in my area you can't have fertility treatment if you are overweight but you can get it if you are a smoker!

It is far too expensive to fund for everyone so to make things fair nobody should get it free on the NHS.

There are plenty of other treatments the NHS could fund instead. One example of this is a new medicine to treat the progressive forms of multiple sclerosis. It has been licensed for use in the EU but the UK government (nice) won't approve it for use here. There is currently no treatment at all for the progressive forms of MS, only for the relapsing/remitting form of the disease.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fertility treatment shouldn't be funded by the NHS. If anyone wants it, they ought to pay for it themselves. A baby is something a person wants, not something any of us need.

I feel those who want plastic surgery treatments and sex swap surgery ought to pay for it themselves... EXCEPT those who's lives would be at risk if they don't have those kinds of surgical procedures.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uriousgeorge82Man
over a year ago

exmouth

"Someone may or may not chose to be gay, but by choosing to be in a gay relationship they are making having kids tricky to say the least! That’s what I think is being meant "

Yes this is what i meant by my comment of chose to be gay and its peoples choice and preferences whether they like ladys or men either way that doenst bother me. Im just saying its a bit harsh that some genuine people who want to have kids and cant get the fertility treatment for one way or another is unfair when you see same sex couples being allowed

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Keep it civil please, the paperwork takes too long for bans

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

Not at all, I happen to be one of those who drink his coffee black

Ok, but how does the asking of this question make the OP transphobic? What am I missing?"

Fair question.

“Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?”

If it wasn’t transphobic the question would have read “Should this service be offered to patients”

The moment we separate people into different categories and offer something to one and no the other we are automatically adopting a pro and anti agenda.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

Not at all, I happen to be one of those who drink his coffee black

Ok, but how does the asking of this question make the OP transphobic? What am I missing?

Fair question.

“Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?”

If it wasn’t transphobic the question would have read “Should this service be offered to patients”

The moment we separate people into different categories and offer something to one and no the other we are automatically adopting a pro and anti agenda."

We are not the ones separating people though, people seperate themselves.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets

Why would you have a sanitary bin in the men's toilets?

Transgender users of said public toilet "

In a school no less , after the kids have been taught that boys can have periods too if they are trans or non binary , yes I put my hand up to that one .

I don’t go looking for these stories , they just appear ! I was minding my own business , watching the news and this story comes on . It seems perfectly reasonable to ask these questions , and I certainly wasn’t being anti trans with my op .

I do agree with DiamondSmiles though . I am of an age that struggles with some of the modern day dilemmas we face .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"Fair question.

“Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?”

If it wasn’t transphobic the question would have read “Should this service be offered to patients”"

But the article is about transgender fertility not anyone's fertility so the article is not about other types of patients.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whilst the NHS is financially struggling then I don’t think anyone regardless of gender, race, age, sex etc should get fertility treatment paid for! The NHS should concentrate on keeping people alive and healthy, sadly they don’t have the money x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

Not at all, I happen to be one of those who drink his coffee black

Ok, but how does the asking of this question make the OP transphobic? What am I missing?

Fair question.

“Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?”

If it wasn’t transphobic the question would have read “Should this service be offered to patients”

The moment we separate people into different categories and offer something to one and no the other we are automatically adopting a pro and anti agenda."

And that’s absolute nonsense !

That was quoted from the BBC news website and it’s discussing a service offered to transgender patients , so how can I remove the transgender reference and keep it relevant ?

Dear oh dear , what a nonsensical notion !

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets

Why would you have a sanitary bin in the men's toilets?

Transgender users of said public toilet

In a school no less , after the kids have been taught that boys can have periods too if they are trans or non binary , yes I put my hand up to that one .

I do agree with DiamondSmiles though . I am of an age that struggles with some of the modern day dilemmas we face ."
i struggle to its my age i tried to work out how to identify myself one day and gave up. But ive learnt to just go with the flow. I feel sorry for 60+ year olds

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eal Deal PartiesWoman
over a year ago

"I think the NHS should be allowed to concentrate on keeping us alive.

This

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"Whilst the NHS is financially struggling then I don’t think anyone regardless of gender, race, age, sex etc should get fertility treatment paid for! The NHS should concentrate on keeping people alive and healthy, sadly they don’t have the money x "

Indeed , and will have even less money after being sued by the equalities commission group !

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

If people have the potential to be left infertile, directly because of ANY condition they were born with or develop, or indirectly as a result of any surgery to address it, I’m not a fan of picking and choosing who gets their eggs/sperm frozen and who doesn’t.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

Not at all, I happen to be one of those who drink his coffee black

Ok, but how does the asking of this question make the OP transphobic? What am I missing?

Fair question.

“Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?”

If it wasn’t transphobic the question would have read “Should this service be offered to patients”

The moment we separate people into different categories and offer something to one and no the other we are automatically adopting a pro and anti agenda."
Oh come on. See when people say some people look to be offended, this is the type of thing they mean. You picked apart how it was phrased and now classed the op as transphobic. You can't win nowadays.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"You can't win nowadays. "

You can

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm glad you added healthy and not just alive.

If NHS means, prescribing drugs to keep you alive till retirement with hopes of you kicking the bucket not long after I don't see the point in it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You can't win nowadays.

You can

I hope so!!!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Are you someone who would lose the plot if someone asked for a black coffee in a coffee shop?

Not at all, I happen to be one of those who drink his coffee black

Ok, but how does the asking of this question make the OP transphobic? What am I missing?

Fair question.

“Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?”

If it wasn’t transphobic the question would have read “Should this service be offered to patients”

The moment we separate people into different categories and offer something to one and no the other we are automatically adopting a pro and anti agenda.

We are not the ones separating people though, people seperate themselves."

I believe you missed my point.

That was regarding the OP’s question and it’s biased nature.

By asking “Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?” instead of “Should this service be offered to all patients ?” the OP obviously has no problem with the service being offered to non transgender patients.

If the offering of this particular service to transgender patients burdens the NHS, surely offering it to non transgender does so even more given the sheer volume discrepancy.

Personally speaking I don’t believe this service should be offered by the NHS at all, there are alternatives, adoption being one of them and that particular example solves 2 problems of both financial and social impact.

But I know I can be a bit radical in my problem solving choices, probably a good thing I’ll never be the prime minister so you’re all safe lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"If people have the potential to be left infertile, directly because of ANY condition they were born with or develop, or indirectly as a result of any surgery to address it, I’m not a fan of picking and choosing who gets their eggs/sperm frozen and who doesn’t."

Exactly.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago

Chester

I'm fine when people change their gender on the NHS. I'm fine with people desperate to be parents getting fertility treatment on the NHS. I'm absolutely not fine with people sueing the NHS for some imagined slight which wastes taxpayers money. If you change gender you bloody know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will become infertile. If you're too dumb to ask for egg/sperm storage before it happens then unlucky. Stop wasting our money on both sides and adopt a poor sod who is stuck in the shitty care system.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Changing gender can often leave people infertile , so should the nhs pay to keep their eggs or sperm frozen in order that they can have their own family after transition ?

It seems the equalities commission is suing nhs England because only a quarter of the nhs clinical commissioning groups offer this service for free to the trangeneder patients .

So what do you think ?

Should the nhs be sued for not offering it to all transgender patients ?

Should this service be offered to all transgender patients ?

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Over to you .....

NO FKIN WAY!!.......

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There are life saving treatments that can leave you infertile and not everyone is offered to have sprem or eggs frozen,and as for ivf again not everyone is eligible to get it on the nhs.

So no i dont think it should be an option.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oo32Man
over a year ago

tipperary

Happy new year folks...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Spot on beth , well said

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *evilandTheBeastCouple
over a year ago

Peterborough and Bedford

"I'm fine when people change their gender on the NHS. I'm fine with people desperate to be parents getting fertility treatment on the NHS. I'm absolutely not fine with people sueing the NHS for some imagined slight which wastes taxpayers money. If you change gender you bloody know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will become infertile. If you're too dumb to ask for egg/sperm storage before it happens then unlucky. Stop wasting our money on both sides and adopt a poor sod who is stuck in the shitty care system. "

Having gone through the system recently myself ('only' broke my knee), I experienced how underfunded the NHS is. They can't even fund the in-patient treatment for anyone below the retirement age, so how are they supposed to fund the fertility treatments?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

Absolutely !

Well said

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"I don't think fertility treatment should be funded on the NHS at all. Having children isn't a right and already many people are excluded from treatment on the NHS. For example in my area you can't have fertility treatment if you are overweight but you can get it if you are a smoker!

It is far too expensive to fund for everyone so to make things fair nobody should get it free on the NHS.

It’s ambiguous from the OP if it’s about the freezing and storage of sperm/eggs, or about any actual fertility down the line. It’s the former in the thread title, but the later in the post itself.

Having children isn’t a right, but the inability to have children due to a medical condition is arguably something that might reasonably be covered by the NHS. Arguably the current provision of, IIRC, two attempts doesn’t seem unreasonable.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Whatever this costs it will be so infrequent to be a drop in the bucket overall.

Your anti-trans attitude is showing, OP. Just get over it. It's horrible.

And your "We're a victim" attitude is showing.

All the drops in the bucket add up.

What are you objecting to exactly? The costs of harvesting, freezing and storage, as opposed to specifically medical costs?

Or the fact that this service may be extended to the trans community?

For example, do you also object to the costs of harvesting, freezing and storage of sperm of men treated for testicular cancer?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inxy300Woman
over a year ago

nottinghamshire

Having worked for the nhs and in fertilty

No no no thats all im saying

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"If that relates to me its not anything to do with gender its just fact!

Not you at all, it relates to OP, he seems to watch a lot of news articles that are somewhat transphobic.

Roughly 2 days ago it was about sanitary bins in men’s public toilets

Why would you have a sanitary bin in the men's toilets?"

Apparently it’s because “boys have periods”.

Or because some trans people might be at the stage where they identify as male, but still have periods.

I’ll let you decide if the attention seeking headline or the more nuanced explanation is nearer the truth.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree completely. As sad as it is that not everyone wanting children can have them, I feel that

Nhs priority should be used to keep patients alive and well.

There is the option of adoption for those desperate for a child and so many children needing loving homes x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

some in ere should of been frozen and never thawed out! ffs

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree completely. As sad as it is that not everyone wanting children can have them, I feel that

Nhs priority should be used to keep patients alive and well.

There is the option of adoption for those desperate for a child and so many children needing loving homes x"
what this lady said

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree completely. As sad as it is that not everyone wanting children can have them, I feel that

Nhs priority should be used to keep patients alive and well.

There is the option of adoption for those desperate for a child and so many children needing loving homes x"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *elma and ShaggyCouple
over a year ago

Bedworth

Agree completely. As sad as it is that not everyone wanting children can have them, I feel that

Nhs priority should be used to keep patients alive and well.

There is the option of adoption for those desperate for a child and so many children needing loving homes x"

Aaaaargh! Not the bloody just adopt sentiment again! I hate that with a passion!

I wish people would realise that it really isn’t a simple as just deciding oh let’s adopt. The process is long, drawn out, harrowing and the majority of people who apply get turned for some silly little reason.

My ex husband and I tried. We endured recurrent miscarriage, unexplained secondary infertility, my treatment for cervical cancer, and then being refused fertility treatment as it was impossible for me to lose 5 stone in the months in order to meet the requirements of being on the waiting list before 35th birthday. We got rejected as potential adopters or fosterers because I had a credit card debt aged 19. All after 9 months of instense assessments by social workers!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is far too expensive to fund for everyone so to make things fair nobody should get it free on the NHS.

I totally disagree with this, who is the nhs to stop decent people like my self who can’t have children being allowed IVF why should a nhs trust decide if I should become a parent or not. I was initially refused due to being over weight I lost weight and gave up smoking I wanted a child that bad.

Your opening a can of worms why should someone who has ms be treated any differently to me, a medical condition is the cause of my infertility it’s no different.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If there was enough money to go round on the NHS then yes but please provide much needed cancer drugs as there are people dying and being refused treatment.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree completely. As sad as it is that not everyone wanting children can have them, I feel that

Nhs priority should be used to keep patients alive and well.

There is the option of adoption for those desperate for a child and so many children needing loving homes x

Aaaaargh! Not the bloody just adopt sentiment again! I hate that with a passion!

I had exactly the same hun, unless you have been told you can’t have children no one knows how it feels.

I hate it when people say oh adopt oh foster it’s not as easy as that, mix hormones, emotions, stress, depression of failed treatment it seriously boils my blood now.

Not having my own child is a pain that will stay with me till the day I die.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ab_SparklesWoman
over a year ago

sparkle Surprised

No having a friend on it, convinced what they wanted and shock to say after three years knowing them. Reverted back to male. When asked why because meet a female and changed for her just like that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why not, if we exclude people based on gender identity then that's not eqality is it? Or are some are more equal than others?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Suing should not be done unless it's the only way to force adherence to legal obligations that aren't fulfilled by consultation.

There should be as near equal access to this service as possible and other medical care costs should not be a deterrent.

The conservatives have made cuts to NHS budgets, whilst spending £billions on Brexit - treatment for everybody should be receiving higher levels of investment but it is a low priority for that party.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham

It is far too expensive to fund for everyone so to make things fair nobody should get it free on the NHS.

Your opening a can of worms why should someone who has ms be treated any differently to me, a medical condition is the cause of my infertility it’s no different.

Nobody is stopping you from having IVF, just save up and pay for it yourself!

Treatments are available for a variety of conditions which lessen symptoms and enable sufferers to maintain some independence, therefore they require much less resources when it comes to social care. People receiving treatment can make them less of a burden on society in general. It will save the taxpayers a fortune in the long term.

Yet you seem to think it is more important to bring another child into an already overpopulated world at the expense of the NHS. A child that will need to be educated, a great cost, in full to bursting schools that cannot cope already with the numbers of children.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is far too expensive to fund for everyone so to make things fair nobody should get it free on the NHS.

Your opening a can of worms why should someone who has ms be treated any differently to me, a medical condition is the cause of my infertility it’s no different.

Nobody is stopping you from having IVF, just save up and pay for it yourself!

Why don’t you save up and go for treatment abroad for ms?.

Being infertile due to a medical condition is NO different to having a illness such as ms and why shouldn’t I bring a child into the world?. Just so you know 1 round of ivf is approx £5k the cost of Gilenya for one year is £19k so who’s the bigger drain on the nhs? Perhaps you should read the nice guidelines on true costings of treatment as your the bigger drain on society not someone desperate for a child.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sue the NHS? yeah why not

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No idea i dont know enough to speak about it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *elma and ShaggyCouple
over a year ago

Bedworth

It is far too expensive to fund for everyone so to make things fair nobody should get it free on the NHS.

Your opening a can of worms why should someone who has ms be treated any differently to me, a medical condition is the cause of my infertility it’s no different.

Nobody is stopping you from having IVF, just save up and pay for it yourself!

Why don’t you save up and go for treatment abroad for ms?.

You state that the cost of a particular drug is 19k, a drug which can keep people living an independent life. In many cases it can keep them able to work and contribute to state coffers rather than taking from them. Without this drug, many people will end up needing social care. The cost of providing a nursing home for a person is in excess of 29k per year!

While we’re on the subject of cost, I googled costs of educating a child and found a very interesting article which estimates that it costs 73k to educate a child. Your 5k for IVF doesn’t seem such good value for money when you look at how much it costs the state afterwards.

Infertility is an emotive issue, I’ve been there and as someone who is unable to have children, I understand and have been through the full gamut of emotions.

The inability to have children is not a life threatening or life limiting illness. It’s emotionally very hard but eventually you learn to come to terms with it and lead a fulfilling life.

I personally feel that rather than the postcode lottery of nhs ivf funding that we have now, it should be available privately only. The limited pot of money that our government gives to the nhs should be spent in the way that the nhs was designed for. To provide care from cradle to grave, not from before cradle

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

NO!

If you are having your bollocks removed then you are going to become infertile. Should you then decide you want children, then go and adopt some. There are many young people who are left to rot in care homes, so do yourself, the children, and the tax payer a favour and adopt...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *tella HeelsTV/TS
over a year ago

west here ford shire

The problem lies in the fact the national insurance contributions we make no longer go to the NHS, this all gets lumped into same oool as income tax.. I for one would pay more to support the NHS

They are brilliant

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *adtaffladMan
over a year ago

Rhyl

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ross-eyed MaryMan
over a year ago

Salisbury

If the patriarchal master plan of making cis females redundant is to be followed, then this is an important step.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham

It is far too expensive to fund for everyone so to make things fair nobody should get it free on the NHS.

Your opening a can of worms why should someone who has ms be treated any differently to me, a medical condition is the cause of my infertility it’s no different.

Nobody is stopping you from having IVF, just save up and pay for it yourself!

Why don’t you save up and go for treatment abroad for ms?.

I don't have MS so why would I need to save up and go abroad for treatment? I'm actually a carer for someone who has the condition. Are you also aware that many disabled people are not actually allowed to fly because of their medical condition and cannot obtain travel insurance even if they are able to go?

You may not be aware but there are other costs associated with long term illness that are not just costs to the NHS. The person who has a long term, life limiting condition will be in receipt of disability related benefits and most cannot work due to their illness. The person who has had to give up work to care for them also cannot work and is in receipt of benefits. Sometimes social services are involved in some way to ensure the carer is coping and to support both the disabled person and their carer.

The amount of benefits a working age disabled person who receives the highest rate due to the severity of their illness is in the region of 15k a year - disability benefits only and doesn't include and housing benefit etc which they would also be entitled to claim. When you add in the benefits a carer receives it amounts to much more than the 19k treatment cost you quote.

In many cases treatment means someone can live an almost normal life. This means you now have two people who can go back to work and instead of being in receipt of benefits they can actually contribute to society by way of their taxes.

Sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

Just a couple of comments on this. I don’t think you can really imply the future cost of education is part of the IVF costs. Children conceived through IVF have the same right to education as any other child. It shouldn’t be seen as being any different.

Also, the suggestion that it costs an additional £73k per child is a logical fallacy.

If there are, for the sake of the argument, 10,000,000 children in school today, and 10,000,001 children in school tomorrow, the cost of educating them all won’t increase by £73k, because most costs are fixed. The rent for the school buildings won’t increase, teacher’s salaries won’t increase etc. The actual increase in costs would in fact most likely be negligible.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’ve just seen an advert for a children’s cancer charity, that gets no public funding. Then there’s the air ambulance. If you accept that there’s not enough money to go around then you have to prioritise funding. I’m not sure anyone would argue that either of these are better causes than fertility treatment of any description

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"I’ve just seen an advert for a children’s cancer charity, that gets no public funding. Then there’s the air ambulance. If you accept that there’s not enough money to go around then you have to prioritise funding. I’m not sure anyone would argue that either of these are better causes than fertility treatment of any description "

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

Yes? I fail to see if u only have a set amount of money, you could do it any other way

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/01/19 12:38:36]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

Also, the suggestion that it costs an additional £73k per child is a logical fallacy.

There's also the point that, of course, most people will add more value to society than the cost of their education.

The average person will pay back the cost of their education in the taxes they pay in the first ten years of their working life.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *elma and ShaggyCouple
over a year ago

Bedworth

Also, the suggestion that it costs an additional £73k per child is a logical fallacy.

There's also the point that, of course, most people will add more value to society than the cost of their education.

The average person will pay back the cost of their education in the taxes they pay in the first ten years of their working life. "

So we should then make sure that we care for them when they need it later in life. When after working 40/50 years and contributing taxes and NI contributions they may develop life limiting conditions which leave them disabled.

We’ve now come full circle. The pot of money is not limitless. The inability to have a child is not a life limiting illness. It’s hard for those of us that it affects but in my opinion, the limited pot of money should be spent in the lives of the population we already have, not on creating a larger population

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

Also, the suggestion that it costs an additional £73k per child is a logical fallacy.

There's also the point that, of course, most people will add more value to society than the cost of their education.

The average person will pay back the cost of their education in the taxes they pay in the first ten years of their working life.

You do realise that the reproduction rate in the UK is below replacement levels? If it were not for immigration our population would be declining.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *pmsldCouple
over a year ago

kettering

The problem with this view is what is alive and healthy? Just body ? or mind aswell? How many people are being perscribed meds for stuff like depression?. Physically they are probably healthy and alive, do you think they should have the medication stopped to save cash, since they will technically continue to live as with many other forms of mental illness. Things like fertillity can have a massive knock on effect for peoples mental wellbeing down the line aswell, so does it just create another problem that would be paid for anyway?.. fact is an ageing population that are no longer paying in, large number of people on benefits not paying in and a ever growing general population is a recipe for disaster and the system will fail at some point unless more tax money is supplied to meet demand or how things are run changes massively. Current trend is to cut services to save, support cutting services and what happens when all thats left are vital life saving ones? How do you deicide Who gets to lose out then? Its cuts over the years that forced it to limit what groups of people qualify for anyway. Ill admit I dont have an answer to the problem other than raising taxes to pay for the services. As for the original post it should be availble to all aslong as the patients meet basic requirements that anyone can meet (weight, not smoking and other life style choices that can effect the out come of the treatment in a negative way)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Shouldn't be a problem when that £350 million a week lands with the NHS at the start of April

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No they shouldn't pay.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

[Removed by poster at 01/01/19 13:30:42]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

What’s more worrying though is how much the nhs has to pay out over claims against it . Over half it’s budget ! 56 billion in 2016 and it goes up every year . Isn’t this just another example of how as a society we have ruined something that was put there for our good health , and we mess it up by ending up by allowing a situation like this .

If the money was there , I’d have no issue with anything the nhs funded . But it simply isn’t , and never will be when we allow a suing culture to exist as we do . The winners in this are the solicitors and lawyers , and the losers are you and I .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

That’s definitely a stat I find hard to believe. As I’m one of the people who tends to be wary of stuff that sounds utterly ridiculous (rather than blindly accepting and repeating it), I spent 10 seconds on Google.

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

Yes? I fail to see if u only have a set amount of money, you could do it any other way "

So if, for example, cancer and heart disease were identified as the two leading causes of death, you would advocate an NHS that only funded the treatment of cancer and heart disease? Nothing else?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?"

It was the first hit when I looked up how much money has the nhs lost in legal costs in 2017 . It seems the amount I quoted is what was ‘ set aside ‘ as opposed to actually spent . For this I apologise , but if you read the report you’ll see how worrying it is . The nhs lose 76% of all claims made against it and it getting worse .

You can’t watch daytime tv without seeing never ending ending no win no fee adverts from companies encouraging medical negligence cases . Do people not realise we are shooting ourselves in the foot by keeping this up ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

Yes? I fail to see if u only have a set amount of money, you could do it any other way

So if, for example, cancer and heart disease were identified as the two leading causes of death, you would advocate an NHS that only funded the treatment of cancer and heart disease? Nothing else?"

Personally I would look at it like this .

There’s so much money available so let’s look at where it would be best spent . Stuff like freezing eggs and sperm , ivf , and other ‘ non life threatening conditions ‘ would be lower on the list than cancer and heart disease . If there’s no money left after the more important stuff , so be it .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?

I’d still love to see a source for this...

Because having that money set aside doesn’t make much sense either. If 50% of the NHS’s budget is set aside for costs resulting from claims against it, but only 2% is paid out, what happens to the other 48%?

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that suing the NHS isn’t exactly helpful. But with the caveat that in cases where negligence has resulted in a significantly and tangible negative way, arguably people should be entitled to some compensation, particularly if it has affected their ability to work and earn money.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

Yes? I fail to see if u only have a set amount of money, you could do it any other way

So if, for example, cancer and heart disease were identified as the two leading causes of death, you would advocate an NHS that only funded the treatment of cancer and heart disease? Nothing else?

Personally I would look at it like this .

But where do you draw the line between what is important and what isn’t important?

Are you saying that having sperm frozen because of testicular cancer isn’t important?

Are you saying that all mental health issues aren’t important?

Are you saying that the NHS should only treat anyone who would literally die if they weren’t treated?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?

I’d still love to see a source for this...

Just google this

Nhs lines up £56 billion

And it should come up .

I would say that in every case that the nhs helps us with , they do their best . If there are mistakes they learn from them . Doctors and surgeons are human after all . So the threat of malpractice lawsuits are an unnecessary and costly exercise that we all pay for . Ultimately with the lack of money available to help with things like this subject and no end of other things we have to do without because there are insufficient funds .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

Yes? I fail to see if u only have a set amount of money, you could do it any other way

So if, for example, cancer and heart disease were identified as the two leading causes of death, you would advocate an NHS that only funded the treatment of cancer and heart disease? Nothing else?

Personally I would look at it like this .

But where do you draw the line between what is important and what isn’t important?

Are you saying that having sperm frozen because of testicular cancer isn’t important?

Are you saying that all mental health issues aren’t important?

Are you saying that the NHS should only treat anyone who would literally die if they weren’t treated?"

Not at all .

As I said , there should be a descending list of priorities .

Mental health is an important issue .

If this thread is anything to go by , freezing sperm or eggs isn’t .

And of course I don’t advocate that only those who would die otherwise should be treated by the nhs .

It’s a simple case of prioritising .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

Yes? I fail to see if u only have a set amount of money, you could do it any other way

So if, for example, cancer and heart disease were identified as the two leading causes of death, you would advocate an NHS that only funded the treatment of cancer and heart disease? Nothing else?

Personally I would look at it like this .

But where do you draw the line between what is important and what isn’t important?

Are you saying that having sperm frozen because of testicular cancer isn’t important?

Are you saying that all mental health issues aren’t important?

Are you saying that the NHS should only treat anyone who would literally die if they weren’t treated?

Not at all .

As I said , there should be a descending list of priorities .

Mental health is an important issue .

If this thread is anything to go by , freezing sperm or eggs isn’t .

And of course I don’t advocate that only those who would die otherwise should be treated by the nhs .

It’s a simple case of prioritising ."

Sorry, I thought you were saying that money should only be spent on life threatening illnesses, and not non life threatening illnesses.

If you are saying it should be spent on some non life threatening things, but not others, how do you propose deciding which receive funding and which don’t?

The idea of prioritising funding is fine. I just disagree it’s as black and white as funding versus not funding. The costs involved in freezing sperm or eggs will be a fraction of the cost of cancer treatment, for example. More significant illnesses will receive the most funding, and less life threatening things will receive less. Which seems reasonable.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?

I’d still love to see a source for this...

Just google this

Nhs lines up £56 billion

And it should come up .

I suspect the figure of £56bn must be over multiple years.

In an article which mentions the £56bn it also states:

“In the past financial year it was forced to reserve £2.28billion to pay for potential damages.”

If that was the figure last year, it makes no sense to suddenly budget £56bn for the following year.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city

Yes of course it "should" be covered by nhs.

Should it be covered now, with the current state of the nhs? Well that would be a matter for the money crunchers.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There's bound to be a divided opinion and most of its been said.

Personally? The NHS should be for people's health and mobility. Sure other stuff is desirable, but the funds just aren't there and the system is stretched as it is, so from me it's a no.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

Yes? I fail to see if u only have a set amount of money, you could do it any other way

So if, for example, cancer and heart disease were identified as the two leading causes of death, you would advocate an NHS that only funded the treatment of cancer and heart disease? Nothing else?

Personally I would look at it like this .

But where do you draw the line between what is important and what isn’t important?

Are you saying that having sperm frozen because of testicular cancer isn’t important?

Are you saying that all mental health issues aren’t important?

Are you saying that the NHS should only treat anyone who would literally die if they weren’t treated?

Not at all .

As I said , there should be a descending list of priorities .

Mental health is an important issue .

If this thread is anything to go by , freezing sperm or eggs isn’t .

And of course I don’t advocate that only those who would die otherwise should be treated by the nhs .

It’s a simple case of prioritising .

Sorry, I thought you were saying that money should only be spent on life threatening illnesses, and not non life threatening illnesses.

If you are saying it should be spent on some non life threatening things, but not others, how do you propose deciding which receive funding and which don’t?

I agree with you

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?

I’d still love to see a source for this...

Just google this

Nhs lines up £56 billion

And it should come up .

I suspect the figure of £56bn must be over multiple years.

In an article which mentions the £56bn it also states:

“In the past financial year it was forced to reserve £2.28billion to pay for potential damages.”

If that was the figure last year, it makes no sense to suddenly budget £56bn for the following year. "

In that same article did it mention that the figure was half its budget ?

Just wondered if it was the same one ...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My personal opinion is nobody should get fertility treatment on the NHS!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"My personal opinion is nobody should get fertility treatment on the NHS! "

That seems to be the general consensus

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?

I’d still love to see a source for this...

Just google this

Nhs lines up £56 billion

And it should come up .

I suspect the figure of £56bn must be over multiple years.

In an article which mentions the £56bn it also states:

“In the past financial year it was forced to reserve £2.28billion to pay for potential damages.”

If that was the figure last year, it makes no sense to suddenly budget £56bn for the following year.

In that same article did it mention that the figure was half its budget ?

Just wondered if it was the same one ..."

It did, but it didn’t mention over what time frame that £56bn was to cover.

Again, think about it. If the cost last year was less than £3bn, it makes no sense to budget £56 for the following year. It would leave an unbelievably massive hole in the NHS’s budget which would cripple it.

So it makes sense that there is some sleight of hand going on. Remember when the Tories were talking about people paying £3k less in tax by 2021? It sounded like we’d be paying £3k less in tax, per year by 2021. But actually meant that by 2021 we’d have paid a total of £3k less in tax cumulatively over a five year period, not in a single year.

If you can find a source saying that a whopping 50% of the NHS’s budget is set aside for this, explains what happens to it if it isn’t used, and explains what happens to the services as a result of 50% of its budget being swallowed up by this if it is used, then I’m all ears...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

It’s a tricky line of reasoning though. If, for the sake of the argument, we collectively decide that those are the two most important causes...

Does that mean that, having decided to prioritise the most important causes, all available funding gets diverted just to those two causes, and no funding goes towards any other causes?

If we wanted an nhs that served to be what it was set out to be , then yes . It’s hard to justify funding to so many causes that simply should never have been made possible in the first place .

Over half the NHS’s budget is spent on claims against it?

And would you believe it? Utter nonsense. The figure is more like 2%. Still too much, but nowhere near “over half it’s budget”. Where on earth did you get that figure from?

I’d still love to see a source for this...

Just google this

Nhs lines up £56 billion

And it should come up .

I suspect the figure of £56bn must be over multiple years.

In an article which mentions the £56bn it also states:

“In the past financial year it was forced to reserve £2.28billion to pay for potential damages.”

If that was the figure last year, it makes no sense to suddenly budget £56bn for the following year.

In that same article did it mention that the figure was half its budget ?

Just wondered if it was the same one ...

It did, but it didn’t mention over what time frame that £56bn was to cover.

I get where you’re coming from , and it would be interesting to know what they are doing with the money put to one side if that’s what they did .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iReyWoman
over a year ago

Cheshire East

Well they wouldn't pay for my fertility treatment and I'm a bio woman with a lifelong disease that's rendered me infertile....so no offence why should trans people have it paid for?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oneeMan
over a year ago

bath

No, if you want the treatment pay for it yourself.

NHS must concentrate on keeping people alive.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *unshine05Man
over a year ago

Sherborne

No they should pay for it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

With the way the country is going, we're not even going to have an NHS in a few years, so all of us might as well get used to paying for private, at least that way it'll cut down on threads like this where people have a bias.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"With the way the country is going, we're not even going to have an NHS in a few years, so all of us might as well get used to paying for private, at least that way it'll cut down on threads like this where people have a bias. "

It's not bias to have an objective opinion based on facts regarding the financial constraints?

I admit I've skimmed lots of the thread, although the general consensus is, that the treatment is desirable not essential, hence in the current climate, lots claim it shouldn't be given?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rsTrellisWoman
over a year ago

Cambridge

Another transphobic, tabloid-style thread?

Of course there are debates to be had about what the NHS can and should pay for. We could approach those decisions with many things in mind:

- clinical efficacy

- severity of condition

- prioritising prevention over cure

- cost vs likely benefit

- etc

Some people might advocate other criteria such as:

- apportioning blame for the illness (should we be treating cancer in smokers, or treating heart disease in the obese, or mending the broken legs of parachute jumpers, or testing for STIs in swingers)

- the worthiness of the ill person. Should we give treatment for X to immigrants, trans people, gay men, overweight people, criminals, the rich etc.

They are difficult, uncomfortable and nuanced debates which OP has managed to reduce to a simplistic, exaggerated, trans-bashing thread. Again.

OP - it’d be quicker to just change your profile to “I hate trans people for reasons that fall apart under scruitiny”.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *sylockeWoman
over a year ago

East Anglia

"Another transphobic, tabloid-style thread?

Of course there are debates to be had about what the NHS can and should pay for. We could approach those decisions with many things in mind:

- clinical efficacy

- severity of condition

- prioritising prevention over cure

- cost vs likely benefit

- etc

Some people might advocate other criteria such as:

- the worthiness of the ill person. Should we give treatment for X to immigrants, trans people, gay men, overweight people, criminals, the rich etc.

They are difficult, uncomfortable and nuanced debates which OP has managed to reduce to a simplistic, exaggerated, trans-bashing thread. Again.

OP - it’d be quicker to just change your profile to “I hate trans people for reasons that fall apart under scruitiny”.

Here, here!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Anti - trans, anti-gay/homophobic, racist, anti-everything. It's what you get brandished if you have an opinion on any so called touchy subject and you get vilified for it. The perfect paradox.

now isnt that interesting

So the victims are the people whose opinions in touchy subjects lean towards a triage system that uses gender identity, sexual preference or race to establish worthiness?

I should add at this point that the world does not vilify homophobes, transphobes, racists, etc, they do that all by themselves when they believe one human being more worthy than the other, superior to another.

If on the hand those very same people were to see all humans beings as equals, worthy of the same rights, I assure you that the adjectives will too change as their stance does.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A serious, balanced news article on the topic of transgender is just that. Reading said article and then talking about it is not by definition trans phobic.

There are no balanced news articles. The very concept is a work of fiction.

I would encourage you to look up Noam Chomsky, he co authored a book that picks apart the media machine and it’s manufactering of consent and manipulation of public opinion.

There’s a clip on YouTube that will give you a decent idea of what I mean.

If we do not dissect something the media machine feeds us we willingly surrender free will.

Always remember, if you don’t pay for a product it usually means you are the product.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"Another transphobic, tabloid-style thread?

Of course there are debates to be had about what the NHS can and should pay for. We could approach those decisions with many things in mind:

- clinical efficacy

- severity of condition

- prioritising prevention over cure

- cost vs likely benefit

- etc

Some people might advocate other criteria such as:

- the worthiness of the ill person. Should we give treatment for X to immigrants, trans people, gay men, overweight people, criminals, the rich etc.

They are difficult, uncomfortable and nuanced debates which OP has managed to reduce to a simplistic, exaggerated, trans-bashing thread. Again.

OP - it’d be quicker to just change your profile to “I hate trans people for reasons that fall apart under scruitiny”.

My op was a balanced one .

This came up on the news , and I certainly wasn’t anti trans in the way I approached it .

It could have been any group , it just so happened to be transgender .

Now as DiamondSmiles has said , it could be my age that causes me to find this a difficult one to get my head around . I have admitted this . I have also said on a separate thread that you’ve made me see things a bit differently with regard to boys having periods at school .

However , and here’s the thing . I am one of the people out there that watches the news and reads newspapers and possibly has a bias . Like millions of others . And possibly the news and newspapers cater to my bias ? And even more so others like me .

So I come on here and get lambasted by a select few every time I post . I also see more people agreeing with me , so it’s not just me is it ?

If things are going to change in such a way that you and the other posters want them to , it’s people like me and our opinions that need to be convinced . There’s no point preaching to the converted is there ?

So little by little , when something is explained in a reasonable way , maybe we listen and look at it differently . Not for every subject matter , but certainly with some .

This particular one isn’t one I will be changing my thinking on . Certainly not when you think I should change my profile to ‘ I hate trans people for reasons that fall apart under scrutiny ‘ , because that’s not always , and certainly not in this case . For your information I don’t hate trans people at all . I know trans friends in and out of the scene . Some I get on well with , some not . The ones I don’t get on with are the ones who think society owes them something , and they spend their lives campaigning for this that and everything . Invariably they are unemployed ( not their fault of course ! ) , and very left wing , with a poor me attitude . Yet once they have a few drinks inside they become a complete pain , prancing around and being a complete attention seeking nuisance to everyone who will listen .

The ones I get on with are like any other friend , their sexuality is irrelevant , they don’t spend all their life talking talking about themselves and are just who they are .

I won’t be hanging my profile as a result of your post this time .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Chose????

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?"

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Utter nonsense and perhaps this type of comment is exactly why I have the issues I have , and so do many others . Because you seem to think I can’t comment on anything to do with transgender issues as you deem I am anti . Which as I have said , I’m not .

You seem to love to be offended on behalf of the transgender community , and if that’s what gives you a buzz , then that’s ok with me . But it’s a bit tiresome when every time I post , you want to tear it to pieces , even when I’ve simply quoted what the BBC website have said .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

OP could you possibly answer these 2 questions honearly, and if possible, elaborate on the reason behind your answers.

Do you believe the NHS should offer ivf to trans patients?

Do you believe the NHS should offer ivf to non trans patients?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?"

The actual article talks about ‘ fertility treatment ‘ , check it out .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

OP could you possibly answer these 2 questions honearly, and if possible, elaborate on the reason behind your answers.

Do you believe the NHS should offer ivf to trans patients?

Do you believe the NHS should offer ivf to non trans patients?

No to both .

Simply because it hasn’t the funds to spend on something that’s not considered to be a disease .

If a couple or indeed a person feel they can be a good parent , then they should have the funds to do so . Therefore they should pay to have the treatment necessary done privately .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?

The actual article talks about ‘ fertility treatment ‘ , check it out ."

Which article?

I still thought the crux of the story was the freezing and storage part, rather than the IVF part.

Once you get on the IVF part, and specifically about the merits of IVF treatment being available on the NHS, then it becomes a wider issue, not a trans issue.

Did you ever say if you were for or against the freezing of sperm if testicular cancer patients?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Absolutely not. Sorry. As a woman with fertility issues who doesn’t qualify for nhs funded ivf. I would be appalled if further funding went to trans as there’s not enough for us non trans as it is. Pardon my ignorance but you’re born with the ability to procreate with your gender assigned to then mutilate it and then expect the wonderful nhs to help you procreate is just not right. If you want kids have them naturally as the sex you were assigned or adopt. Plenty of kids need loving homes out there.

Really touchy subject for me

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the NHS should be allowed to concentrate on keeping us alive.

This

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No I believe it shouldn't pay same as plastic surgery unless it's proven medical that you need it you don't get it unless you pay

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?

The actual article talks about ‘ fertility treatment ‘ , check it out .

Which article?

I still thought the crux of the story was the freezing and storage part, rather than the IVF part.

Once you get on the IVF part, and specifically about the merits of IVF treatment being available on the NHS, then it becomes a wider issue, not a trans issue.

Did you ever say if you were for or against the freezing of sperm if testicular cancer patients?

The BBC news article which is there for all to see . Yes the start of the op was talking about freezing eggs or sperm for trans patients , but the news piece goes further , just as my op did .

I didn’t say whether I thought testicular cancer patients should have their sperm frozen for free by the nhs . Why don’t you start a thread asking just that , and maybe I’ll answer on that .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?

The actual article talks about ‘ fertility treatment ‘ , check it out .

Which article?

I still thought the crux of the story was the freezing and storage part, rather than the IVF part.

Once you get on the IVF part, and specifically about the merits of IVF treatment being available on the NHS, then it becomes a wider issue, not a trans issue.

Did you ever say if you were for or against the freezing of sperm if testicular cancer patients?

The BBC news article which is there for all to see . Yes the start of the op was talking about freezing eggs or sperm for trans patients , but the news piece goes further , just as my op did .

I didn’t say whether I thought testicular cancer patients should have their sperm frozen for free by the nhs . Why don’t you start a thread asking just that , and maybe I’ll answer on that ."

I can only see a story from August talking about freezing and storage. If you want to point people to a source, it would be helpful to post the link.

I didn’t think it needed a new thread, as I thought it was reasonably covered by the subject we’re discussing, ie who should and who shouldn’t the NHS provide certain fertility related services for.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford

I think it's about fertility treatment in general.

All in or all out. No postcode lottery.

Everyone equal. Regardless if sexuality or gender.

If we can afford it then for everyone. If we can't afford it then for noone.

But who decides? Not me thank goodness...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iReyWoman
over a year ago

Cheshire East

"Absolutely not. Sorry. As a woman with fertility issues who doesn’t qualify for nhs funded ivf. I would be appalled if further funding went to trans as there’s not enough for us non trans as it is. Pardon my ignorance but you’re born with the ability to procreate with your gender assigned to then mutilate it and then expect the wonderful nhs to help you procreate is just not right. If you want kids have them naturally as the sex you were assigned or adopt. Plenty of kids need loving homes out there.

Really touchy subject for me

Same.boat for me

I spent 10 years trying and under the lottery postcode me and my ex never qualified for fertility treatment and had to fund it ourselves at 6 grand a pop. I dont think it's fair to pay for transgender ivf ( not a pop at trans people in general ) and to deny others with the excuse that it costs the NHS too much money. It annoys me as much as people getting nose jobs and boob jobs on the NHS too

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?

The actual article talks about ‘ fertility treatment ‘ , check it out .

Which article?

I still thought the crux of the story was the freezing and storage part, rather than the IVF part.

Once you get on the IVF part, and specifically about the merits of IVF treatment being available on the NHS, then it becomes a wider issue, not a trans issue.

Did you ever say if you were for or against the freezing of sperm if testicular cancer patients?

The BBC news article which is there for all to see . Yes the start of the op was talking about freezing eggs or sperm for trans patients , but the news piece goes further , just as my op did .

I didn’t say whether I thought testicular cancer patients should have their sperm frozen for free by the nhs . Why don’t you start a thread asking just that , and maybe I’ll answer on that .

I can only see a story from August talking about freezing and storage. If you want to point people to a source, it would be helpful to post the link.

If I knew how to post a link I would .

Just type BBC news should the nhs pay for transgender fertility treatment .

I haven’t asked whether those with testicular cancer should be offered free nhs freezer facilities at any point .

You seem intent on goading me to force me to say what could be inferred as an anti trans comment . If I say yes the guy with testicular cancer should be able to have his sperm frozen on the nhs , you’ll say the m to f trans should also be afforded the same because he/she is equally as entitled as he/she has a condition that is just as relevant and why should we exclude them from the same opportunity . Correct ?

So there is no right answer , because if I say no the guy with testicular cancer shouldn’t , then I may be denying him the opportunity through no fault of his own to have kids . But saying yes will also deny the trans person from having kids of their own through no fault of their own too wouldn’t it ?

Would you prefer me to say the guy with testicular cancer is more deserving than the trans person ?

How about you answer that one first then .....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Not sure if the OP has been savaged here for starting a debate ..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"Not sure if the OP has been savaged here for starting a debate .."

Only by the usual suspects , but that’s ok .

I’m kinda used to it now

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?

The actual article talks about ‘ fertility treatment ‘ , check it out .

Which article?

I still thought the crux of the story was the freezing and storage part, rather than the IVF part.

Once you get on the IVF part, and specifically about the merits of IVF treatment being available on the NHS, then it becomes a wider issue, not a trans issue.

Did you ever say if you were for or against the freezing of sperm if testicular cancer patients?

The BBC news article which is there for all to see . Yes the start of the op was talking about freezing eggs or sperm for trans patients , but the news piece goes further , just as my op did .

I didn’t say whether I thought testicular cancer patients should have their sperm frozen for free by the nhs . Why don’t you start a thread asking just that , and maybe I’ll answer on that .

I can only see a story from August talking about freezing and storage. If you want to point people to a source, it would be helpful to post the link.

If I knew how to post a link I would .

Just type BBC news should the nhs pay for transgender fertility treatment ."

If you know how to copy and paste, you know how to post a link. Is it this one?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-46634595/should-the-nhs-pay-for-transgender-fertility-treatment

Seems to be specifically about the freezing and storage issue. No mention of IVF.

"I haven’t asked whether those with testicular cancer should be offered free nhs freezer facilities at any point .

Would you prefer me to say the guy with testicular cancer is more deserving than the trans person ?

How about you answer that one first then ....."

I asked you. Asking you I’m the context of the discussion is hardly goading you though. I don’t have any preference as to what you say, I was just interested what your view is, that’s all.

My view is that is should probably be available for all, equally, subject to cost.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Not sure if the OP has been savaged here for starting a debate .."

If someone starts a debate, then by definition there will likely be people with different views.

I think opposing views have been posted by a few people in a perfectly polite andctwsonanle way. To suggest the OP has been “savaged” seems a bit excessive.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ssex_tomMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford

"Not sure if the OP has been savaged here for starting a debate ..

If someone starts a debate, then by definition there will likely be people with different views.

I think opposing views have been posted by a few people in a perfectly polite andctwsonanle way. To suggest the OP has been “savaged” seems a bit excessive."

Definitely savaged

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They choose to be gay, they choose to change genders, then they choose to have kids

What else do these people want?

Want

Ffs give it a rest and let the NHS concentrate on more worthy courses

If you want to charge genders pay for it yourself and stop draining the NHS

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"I was interested why you asked this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is?

Rather than ask this:

Furthermore , should the nhs be paying for ivf when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

The news story was on BBC1 .

It was discussing transgender issues relating to the nhs and ivf .

So are you really suggesting I make a post based on what I see on the news , but omit the part about transgenders to keep you and the others who seem to think I have an issue with them happy ?

Close, but unless I have my wires crossed, no cigar....

I thought the story was about the NHS being sued because some Trusts did not provide free storage of eggs/sperm for those undergoing trans surgery, whereas other Trusts did?

Which wasn’t about IVF.

But you added:

*Furthermore* , should the nhs be paying for ivf for transgender patients when they can’t afford drugs to treat so many other diseases and is struggling to balance the books as it is ?

Suggesting that was entirely your own tangential question over and above what the original story was about?

The actual article talks about ‘ fertility treatment ‘ , check it out .

Which article?

I still thought the crux of the story was the freezing and storage part, rather than the IVF part.

Once you get on the IVF part, and specifically about the merits of IVF treatment being available on the NHS, then it becomes a wider issue, not a trans issue.

Did you ever say if you were for or against the freezing of sperm if testicular cancer patients?

The BBC news article which is there for all to see . Yes the start of the op was talking about freezing eggs or sperm for trans patients , but the news piece goes further , just as my op did .

I didn’t say whether I thought testicular cancer patients should have their sperm frozen for free by the nhs . Why don’t you start a thread asking just that , and maybe I’ll answer on that .

I can only see a story from August talking about freezing and storage. If you want to point people to a source, it would be helpful to post the link.

If I knew how to post a link I would .

Just type BBC news should the nhs pay for transgender fertility treatment .

If you know how to copy and paste, you know how to post a link. Is it this one?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-46634595/should-the-nhs-pay-for-transgender-fertility-treatment

Seems to be specifically about the freezing and storage issue. No mention of IVF.

I haven’t asked whether those with testicular cancer should be offered free nhs freezer facilities at any point .

Would you prefer me to say the guy with testicular cancer is more deserving than the trans person ?

How about you answer that one first then .....

I asked you. Asking you I’m the context of the discussion is hardly goading you though. I don’t have any preference as to what you say, I was just interested what your view is, that’s all.

My view is that is should probably be available for all, equally, subject to cost. "

Good answer , and a comfortable fence you’re sitting on .

We all agree that if the money is available there’s a whole host of things that should ‘ probably be available ‘ .

However the money isn’t available is it ?

So I’m gonna say no to both .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The NHS is on borrowed time, won't be able to afford it. A 1940s system with the view to reduce health need, operating in the ever growing population of the 21st century with more and more chronic conditions to deal with

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They choose to be gay, they choose to change genders, then they choose to have kids

What else do these people want?

Want

Ffs give it a rest and let the NHS concentrate on more worthy courses

If you want to charge genders pay for it yourself and stop draining the NHS "

Agreed. While the general consensus seems to be that ivf shouldn’t be free for anyone on the nhs, it seems most people draw a distinction between people who chose to do something to themselves that may render them infertile too. Thats why the trans section was inserted and why the original question was trans based and not ivf based.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"They choose to be gay, they choose to change genders, then they choose to have kids"
There’s lots of things I’d like to say in response to this. I’ll just settle for: You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Honestly, it’s hard to conceive of how, in this day and age, and knowing you have access to the internet and, with it, a world of knowledge, somebody could post this.

"If you want kids really badly then get a second or third job and pay for it, in a world where credit and payment plans are so commonplace there really isn’t an excuse. And if you ‘cant’ make the money, may I kindly suggest that you don’t really want it enough."
So, for it to be followed up with this is quite spectacular. The level of ignorance in this post is so staggering, I’m not quite sure where to begin.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nah fuck em

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ross-eyed MaryMan
over a year ago

Salisbury

Breeding is a hot subject in the tranny kink world, even sexier if there's a Dr trying to help you! Mmmmmmm breed me ductur....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They also shouldn't pay for women to take steroids to turn into men

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"They choose to be gay, they choose to change genders, then they choose to have kidsThere’s lots of things I’d like to say in response to this. I’ll just settle for: You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. Honestly, it’s hard to conceive of how, in this day and age, and knowing you have access to the internet and, with it, a world of knowledge, somebody could post this.

If you want kids really badly then get a second or third job and pay for it, in a world where credit and payment plans are so commonplace there really isn’t an excuse. And if you ‘cant’ make the money, may I kindly suggest that you don’t really want it enough.So, for it to be followed up with this is quite spectacular. The level of ignorance in this post is so staggering, I’m not quite sure where to begin."

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And I think you all need to get laid more

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles. "

My mind certainly boggles at the fact that this thread has had such a profound effect on posters . Why it should have this effect on yourself and the poster you quoted is one of life’s mysteries . Unless of course you’re both part of the new generation that loves to be offended on behalf of others that is , and we all know there are plenty who do exactly that .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’m struggling to see your point? Possibly because you don’t appear to have one?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *alking DisasterWoman
over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?"

I’ve answered that a few times on the thread , but just FYI , I was watching the news when this came up and I thought it was an interesting topic to start a thread about . Perhaps I should have just put a ‘ bars open ‘ , or a ‘ fuck , kiss , pass ‘ thread up instead ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *alking DisasterWoman
over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?

You can't seem to understand that tolerant people accept it and question it.

Be nicer and a bit more tolerant. It's actually not that difficult.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?

You can't seem to understand that tolerant people accept it and question it.

Be nicer and a bit more tolerant. It's actually not that difficult."

Did you mean tolerant people accept it and ‘ don’t ‘ question it ?

And are you really telling me to be nicer ? Whatever next ....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?

You can't seem to understand that tolerant people accept it and question it.

Be nicer and a bit more tolerant. It's actually not that difficult."

What on Earth is being intolerant with this thread? How is the OP being anti trans? Explain?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *htcMan
over a year ago

Nope.

Same with all over surgeries breast enlargement and all the rest.

Keeping people alive and treating people, nothing else, scrap all middle management keep all wages below 100k

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *alking DisasterWoman
over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?

You can't seem to understand that tolerant people accept it and question it.

Be nicer and a bit more tolerant. It's actually not that difficult.

Did you mean tolerant people accept it and ‘ don’t ‘ question it ?

And are you really telling me to be nicer ? Whatever next ....

How haven't I been nice in any of the anti trans threads? I have patiently explained the thinking behind things - and politely too.

However, all I got was abuse.

As I said, be more tolerant. It isn't that difficult.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"Unless of course you’re both part of the new generation that loves to be offended on behalf of others that is , and we all know there are plenty who do exactly that ."

You wear your lack of empathy as though it’s a badge of honour, when it should be a mark of shame. It’s desperately sad that you think people love being offended on behalf of others when the reality is that, if you possessed even a shred of basic human decency, you would realise that people don’t call out your hateful behaviour for no reason. They call it out because it is nasty.

Some argue that people speak up for each other because one day we might need them to speak up for us. I have the safety blanket of knowing, as a straight white male, that I’m unlikely to ever be a victim because of the traits I was born with. I don’t speak up for others as insurance. I speak up for others because it’s the right thing to do.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"I’m struggling to see your point? Possibly because you don’t appear to have one?"

That’s not why you’re struggling. Trust me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"As I said, be more tolerant. It isn't that difficult."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I’m struggling to see your point? Possibly because you don’t appear to have one?

That’s not why you’re struggling. Trust me."

Oh trust me my little handed friend, my struggles end at trying to understand people who, not only can not articulate themselves properly but also don’t have a point to articulate in the first place. Apologies for making you put the guardian down.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?

You can't seem to understand that tolerant people accept it and question it.

Be nicer and a bit more tolerant. It's actually not that difficult.

Did you mean tolerant people accept it and ‘ don’t ‘ question it ?

And are you really telling me to be nicer ? Whatever next ....

How haven't I been nice in any of the anti trans threads? I have patiently explained the thinking behind things - and politely too.

However, all I got was abuse.

As I said, be more tolerant. It isn't that difficult."

I wasn’t saying you weren’t nice in your defense of the trans community . My comment was made with respect to the fact that I don’t need you to tell me to be nice , nor do I need you to tell me to be more tolerant .

There are plenty of people who have commented on this thread who may have been anti trans , yet you choose to chastise me ! And I haven’t been anti trans at all this time .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

[Removed by poster at 03/01/19 21:02:11]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

"Oh trust me my little handed friend, my struggles end at trying to understand people who, not only can not articulate themselves properly but also don’t have a point to articulate in the first place. Apologies for making you put the guardian down. "

No, you’re struggles only just begun at your total lack of understanding of this subject. No idea about the costs you described, the current economic climate, the current job market, and the amount people earn compared to the cost of day to day life. Your post demonstrated quite clearly that you exist in an I’m-alright-Jack bubble. Add to that the fact that you were agreeing with a poster who appears to genuinely think that sexuality and gender are a matter of choice, in direct contradiction to their own lived experience, let alone established medical science. That’s a pretty special level of ignorance for you to hitch your cart to.

You can bluster all you want about my choice of newspaper, but there’s no escaping the fact that you don’t have even a loose grasp of the most basic parts of this argument.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"Unless of course you’re both part of the new generation that loves to be offended on behalf of others that is , and we all know there are plenty who do exactly that .

Well there we have it !

You accuse me of hateful comments when I haven’t made any .

And then come out with a tirade of pc , left wing crap , which signals the demise of free speech in this country .

If I choose to start a thread which evokes a discussion on trans issues , that’s my right . If I make hateful comments , I expect to be pulled up for making them , but I haven’t done that on this thread .

If your sense of feeling ‘it’s the right thing to do’ ,when you speak up for the trans community is satiated by doing so on every thread I start , then I’m glad I can make you feel good about yourself by starting such threads .

I’m not going to accuse you of picking on me with this one , as you have been equally as liberal with your criticism to other posters .

But the fact is , this thread represents a balanced view from the fab community , and I think you’ll find the vast majority say no . Yes , plenty of posters actually came on to the thread to simply answer the questions asked , rather than slating me .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *alking DisasterWoman
over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

"Unless of course you’re both part of the new generation that loves to be offended on behalf of others that is , and we all know there are plenty who do exactly that .

Well there we have it !

You accuse me of hateful comments when I haven’t made any .

And then come out with a tirade of pc , left wing crap , which signals the demise of free speech in this country .

I’m not going to accuse you of picking on me with this one , as you have been equally as liberal with your criticism to other posters .

Maybe they didn't read your comments on two previous threads in the last week?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

And then come out with a tirade of pc , left wing crap , which signals the demise of free speech in this country .

Complete bullshit. There is no demise of free speech. Stop playing the victim.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You can bluster all you want about my choice of newspaper, but there’s no escaping the fact that you don’t have even a loose grasp of the most basic parts of this argument."

I have a great grasp of both the economic climate and job market as a small business owner and employer. I also have never seen this poster (although it sounds ok to me).

If you took the time to re read my comments properly you would see that I never said anyone chooses to be a gender, but when someone CHOOSES to have an operation that could affect their fertility then this changes the situation in my eyes, and many others peoples.

My point was that if someone wants something enough then they in 99.99% of cases have the ability to go out and earn the money needed to pay for any of this, anything else is an excuse I’m afraid.

Oh and apologies for the newspaper jibe, it was actually a tongue in cheek stab in the dark, how’s your luck eh?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loswingers OP Couple
over a year ago

Gloucester

And then come out with a tirade of pc , left wing crap , which signals the demise of free speech in this country .

Complete bullshit. There is no demise of free speech. Stop playing the victim. "

I knew it wouldn’t be long before you came in such words of wisdom

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *alking DisasterWoman
over a year ago

South Oxfordshire

The age of information one would think.

I have had some serious double face palm” moments (when 1 palm to the face just isn’t enough) following this thread.

The mind boggles.

Why did it have such an effect on you that you had to post yet another anti-trans thread?

You can't seem to understand that tolerant people accept it and question it.

Be nicer and a bit more tolerant. It's actually not that difficult.

Did you mean tolerant people accept it and ‘ don’t ‘ question it ?

And are you really telling me to be nicer ? Whatever next ....

How haven't I been nice in any of the anti trans threads? I have patiently explained the thinking behind things - and politely too.

However, all I got was abuse.

As I said, be more tolerant. It isn't that difficult.

There are plenty of people who have commented on this thread who may have been anti trans , yet you choose to chastise me ! And I haven’t been anti trans at all this time . "

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread. I know what it's going to say when the original post is slanted the way yours was.

And that you (or they) won't listen to a decent reason as to why their view is hateful.

I still stand by my view - be tolerant of people, ask legitimate questions (not something with an agenda). You'll then find you can have a civilized conversation about things.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *entish79Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

I’m struggling to see your point? Possibly because you don’t appear to have one? "

The point, as I undrstood it, was that your comments seemed wildly inaccurate and lacking in an understanding of the subject. And that this seemed hard to believe given the ease of access to a wealth of information online.

I could have misinterpreted it though.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

Ah, Gloswingers, congratulations on highlighting that you don’t understand what free speech means.

Free speech is there to protect us from the government silencing us when we express our opinion.

‘Free speech’ is not ‘speech without consequence’. You can say what you want, sure, but you can be challenged on it, and you can face legal action if what you say breaks the law.

Nothing about free speech prohibits people from being told that what they have said is both wrong and stupid.

The sooner you understand that, and get used to being told that things people have said are wrong and stupid, the sooner you can stop crying into your cornflakes that many people would like the world to be a better, fairer place.

One or two people have expressed a balanced view; that, while there is a discussion to be had about what services the NHS does and doesn’t provide, if something is provided, it should be provided across the board, for everyone. There is no need to distinguish between cis and trans in that discussion.

Some people have taken the opportunity to have a go at trans people. That is not balanced. That is obnoxious.

Maybe read the Equalities Act 2010, learn what protected characteristics are, and then realise that every time you post a thread that looks to distinguish the rights of trans people from the rights of every other human being, you’re in the wrong.

You maybe don’t think that what you say is hateful because you’re not calling trans people names, but when you seek to separate people by these protected characteristics, and question their worthiness compared to others, that is hateful. The fact that you keep posting these threads, repeatedly prodding at trans people, is hateful.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately