It\'s not our fault...
- Thread starter Infidel Castro
- Start date
vincegamer
Active member
Problem I see is that a health service (don\'t have the same in the states) is to provide for the health of people.
If you have something physically wrong with you that prevents you from having children, then a health service should help you do something about it.
Health service helping gay couples would suggest that being gay is a physical ailment.
p.s. As to obese people, there\'s every reason to believe there is something unhealthy in their lifestyle that will be imparted to their children, so if your goal is to keep kids out of an unhealthy environment, then there\'s every reason not to aid obese people in becoming parents.
If you have something physically wrong with you that prevents you from having children, then a health service should help you do something about it.
Health service helping gay couples would suggest that being gay is a physical ailment.
p.s. As to obese people, there\'s every reason to believe there is something unhealthy in their lifestyle that will be imparted to their children, so if your goal is to keep kids out of an unhealthy environment, then there\'s every reason not to aid obese people in becoming parents.
Woah! Pile on time..
The whole thing about the Health Service is that it is based upon an opportunity cost system of resource allocation..funds are finite so one\'s person\'s cycle of IVF means another person goes without a course of (possibly life-saving) drugs etc. Bearing in mind the difficulties associated with allocating scarce resources...people will invent criteria (We\'d call that hoops to jump through....
The fact of the matter is, as far as UK is concerned...and this is all still entirely at the level of recommendation...obese people will be asked to reduce their weight before publicly funded IVF will be available...grossly obese people will be denied IVF entirely, unless they turn themselves into obese people...etc get my drift...
This has nothing to do IMO with the suitability of the parent, simply the health risk to both mother and baby of implanting an egg into a person who has been given the \'clinical diagnosis\' of gross obesity...I agree..I\'d call it medical malpractice as would many lawyers...
I am more interested in the fact that a 6 stone, chain-smoking, anorexic female would not apparently be excluded by these new recommendations...
Bureaucrats? Don\'t ya just love them?
The whole thing about the Health Service is that it is based upon an opportunity cost system of resource allocation..funds are finite so one\'s person\'s cycle of IVF means another person goes without a course of (possibly life-saving) drugs etc. Bearing in mind the difficulties associated with allocating scarce resources...people will invent criteria (We\'d call that hoops to jump through....
The fact of the matter is, as far as UK is concerned...and this is all still entirely at the level of recommendation...obese people will be asked to reduce their weight before publicly funded IVF will be available...grossly obese people will be denied IVF entirely, unless they turn themselves into obese people...etc get my drift...
This has nothing to do IMO with the suitability of the parent, simply the health risk to both mother and baby of implanting an egg into a person who has been given the \'clinical diagnosis\' of gross obesity...I agree..I\'d call it medical malpractice as would many lawyers...
I am more interested in the fact that a 6 stone, chain-smoking, anorexic female would not apparently be excluded by these new recommendations...
Bureaucrats? Don\'t ya just love them?
Sand Rat
New member
Like Vike said Vince who decides what is obese? The BME is underfire from the medical establishment as being incorrect (basically, you can have 1 or 2 percent body fat, and still be Obese according to the BME because of the way it is set up), and the CDC established its guidelines for \"average\" heights and weights by calling people on the phone and asking them how tall they were and how much they weighed. A really scientific approach to the issue, wouldnt you say? Especially when folks are known to lie about both.
Well I dont think we should pay for anyone to have kids. I know a couple of couples that have done it and I know it costs alot but I dont see why I should help fund someone to have kids. maybe the adoption process could be stream lined or something or at least partially funded so its not as expensive. I dont have a prob with gay people I have gay friends but If they cant have kids naturally well IMHO thats tough. Just like if I couldnt have kids naturally it would be tough for me. I agree with the infirtillity thing. Maybe nature is saying slow down but maybe the government should too. Too many people not enough planet earth. We only have so much space and resources time to stop and think about it.
BTW I have 4 kids to 3 different women but I payed for all of them.
BTW I have 4 kids to 3 different women but I payed for all of them.
Infidel Castro
New member
Ah, but they will. The new system prevent s people who are too thin having the IVF.
My big issue still is the notion of having a right to have kids even when your body can\'t allow it (or your partner\'s). At what point will we see new arms given for free on the NHS because someone was born without one? To what higher power/morality are people appealing when they feel it is their right to have something from the NHS because they are in a position through no fault of their own? Yes, it may not be their fault perhaps because there is no fault anywhere anyway, that is, the status quo is the normality of the situation. You\'re a lesbian? You\'re in a lesbian relationship? You want a baby? Through IVF funded by the NHS? BUGGER OFF! And the same should be considered for may others if not all people expecting help on the NHS. The NHS is not a judiciary system and as such should not be forced to play God.
And as has been echoed already, adoption is available and would be helping people in the best possible way.
Infertile? Shit happens. Leasbian? Shit happens. My nob falls off tomorrow and my partner can\'t have a baby from me? Shit happens. Why all this madness?
Torn blue sky
New member
Originally by reverend
lol You tell it like it is rev.
lol You tell it like it is rev.
Beelzebrush
Active member
Ebonbuddha
Active member
Yep. It’s official. It is ok to be bigoted toward obese people. :beer:
Ebonbuddha
Active member
Yes. you said it perfectly.:beer:
Er... isn\'t that how a lot of NHS treatment works? Stuff happens you get treated. In fact, no one bats an eyelid if I break my leg doing some dangerous sport and get it fixed on NHS, so how is this any worse? Surely, by your reasoning if something is your fault then you shouldn\'t get it on NHS. Smoking related disease springs instantly to mind, although I guess they pay quite a lot of tax.
I wonder if there is anyway of working out if you have a net gain or loss from your taxes? I reckon I have a net loss.
On a wider note, its a fact of life that when you pay tax you pay for heaps of things you may never use. Despite this I think I prefer a socialist approach, if we could opt out of paying for everything, how many of us would pay any tax at all? I reckon society would regress pretty quickly as people decided not to pay for things.
Currently I have absolutely no say in how my taxes are paid, (I can\'t vote, being a temporary resident, although I\'ve been here over 4 years now so its not particularly temporary...) at least you can register your disapproval by voting.
farseerlum
New member
bigotry ebonbuddah??
almost every book on pregnancy will note that being overweight will adversly affect having children. yet youwant to waste $$s on making them pregnent? i\'m sure your aware that any very obese person will have trouble becoming pregnent due to hormone issues. and those that do have a much reduced chance of bringing to term.
IVF is expensive. looking after premmy babies is expensive. having obese children grow up into obese adults is expensive.
and in all these expensive times there is distinct chance of death. just cus.
there comes a time when bigotry is just common sence. don\'t confuse the two.
as for lesbians wanting babies. F\'em all i say.
almost every book on pregnancy will note that being overweight will adversly affect having children. yet youwant to waste $$s on making them pregnent? i\'m sure your aware that any very obese person will have trouble becoming pregnent due to hormone issues. and those that do have a much reduced chance of bringing to term.
IVF is expensive. looking after premmy babies is expensive. having obese children grow up into obese adults is expensive.
and in all these expensive times there is distinct chance of death. just cus.
there comes a time when bigotry is just common sence. don\'t confuse the two.
as for lesbians wanting babies. F\'em all i say.
Infidel Castro
New member
You\'re missing the point. Two lesbians, no means to get pregnant within a relationship, something that they deem outside of their control...that\'s different from breaking a bloody leg lol
A health service is a service for health. Amazing isn\'t it! Having IVF is not a health issue, it\'s a lifestyle issue. It\'s a want rather than a need. The point at which the NHS fails is in not preaching better lifestyles and encouraging people to take the initiative. If people became more aware of what makes us ill and did the right things to do prevent illness, we\'d pay less National Insurance.
Being born without the means to reproduce must be horrible. Being a lesbian and wanting a baby must be horrible. Being born with a heart defect is a different matter though, and as such puts infertility or sexual orientation (whether choice or not) into context. A health service is normally for trying to keep people well (and alive) so IVF and all the rest of it is a luxury that tax payers shouldn\'t fund.
Unless I misunderstand it, Rev\'s point is that in a world of finite resources, priority should be given to the most life threatening cases, then to the serious, then minor and so on, much like a hospital triage room.
In principle I don\'t see this as a problem, especially as the lesbians in question do not appear to have anything biologically the matter with them, and just 15 years ago would not have any legitimate expectation of having biological children.
What I do not agree with is the turn the discussion has taken regarding IVF and fertility treatment as a whole being not being publicly funded because it is not medically necessary.
There are actually two other considerations:
1. Where to draw the line at alleviating human suffering? I believe the NHS attempts to treat all cases, albeit not always in a timely way. Broken fingers aren\'t very serious and are cheap to treat, should the NHS start turning these people away? What about broken nails, or splinters? What about autism, which is not life threatening, or particularly subsceptible to favourable results, but expensive to treat? I think ideologically at least the NHS is taking the right tack in thinking that fertility falls within their mandate, without commenting about their overall success in more critical areas like heart surgery.
2. Who\'s going to pay for and encourage the next generation of IVF doctors if there is no government funding? With dropping fertility rates in the UK any responsible government with a long term view is going to be thinking of having at least a reasonable size cadre of experts on call for the current and future need. One of the problems with the NHS is that if any expensive procedure isn\'t funded by it, then progress in that area is usually stunted.
Consideration 2 is actually more of a problem with the NHS as a concept. Since so much money is poured into it, anything that is excluded becomes marginalised, which may not reflect the true desire or needs of the market. It distorts demand and supply by adding an intemediary in between.
There are alternative health systems out there that have their own problems, but don\'t have distorting economic effects. They do provide insurance for treatment in the event of infertility, but since there is nothing biologically wrong with the lesbians or single women who wish to be mums without the \"unneccesary\" step of intercourse, this would not apply.
In effect, the parents of the lesbians would have had to take out insurance against their children being gay and hence needing to resort to this sort of treatment. If the society as a whole agrees to this type of social insurance then the cost of this type of treatment can be spread out over many private insurers.
However, the slippery slope there is, do we pay for womb transplants to gay or single men once the science catches up?
I think eventually it boils down to cost, and if you\'ve got extra IVF doctors around you have to feed, as in case 2, opening it up to single women and lesbians may not be throwing away money, rather its retaining doctors. The needs of doctors, rather than patients, has probably more to do with this decision than anything.
In principle I don\'t see this as a problem, especially as the lesbians in question do not appear to have anything biologically the matter with them, and just 15 years ago would not have any legitimate expectation of having biological children.
What I do not agree with is the turn the discussion has taken regarding IVF and fertility treatment as a whole being not being publicly funded because it is not medically necessary.
There are actually two other considerations:
1. Where to draw the line at alleviating human suffering? I believe the NHS attempts to treat all cases, albeit not always in a timely way. Broken fingers aren\'t very serious and are cheap to treat, should the NHS start turning these people away? What about broken nails, or splinters? What about autism, which is not life threatening, or particularly subsceptible to favourable results, but expensive to treat? I think ideologically at least the NHS is taking the right tack in thinking that fertility falls within their mandate, without commenting about their overall success in more critical areas like heart surgery.
2. Who\'s going to pay for and encourage the next generation of IVF doctors if there is no government funding? With dropping fertility rates in the UK any responsible government with a long term view is going to be thinking of having at least a reasonable size cadre of experts on call for the current and future need. One of the problems with the NHS is that if any expensive procedure isn\'t funded by it, then progress in that area is usually stunted.
Consideration 2 is actually more of a problem with the NHS as a concept. Since so much money is poured into it, anything that is excluded becomes marginalised, which may not reflect the true desire or needs of the market. It distorts demand and supply by adding an intemediary in between.
There are alternative health systems out there that have their own problems, but don\'t have distorting economic effects. They do provide insurance for treatment in the event of infertility, but since there is nothing biologically wrong with the lesbians or single women who wish to be mums without the \"unneccesary\" step of intercourse, this would not apply.
In effect, the parents of the lesbians would have had to take out insurance against their children being gay and hence needing to resort to this sort of treatment. If the society as a whole agrees to this type of social insurance then the cost of this type of treatment can be spread out over many private insurers.
However, the slippery slope there is, do we pay for womb transplants to gay or single men once the science catches up?
I think eventually it boils down to cost, and if you\'ve got extra IVF doctors around you have to feed, as in case 2, opening it up to single women and lesbians may not be throwing away money, rather its retaining doctors. The needs of doctors, rather than patients, has probably more to do with this decision than anything.
Dammekkos2
New member
Indeed, people without wombs (men, for example), should also be allowed a shot at being artificially impregnated too right?
How about the elderly? Is denying them this treatment (for the safety of themselves, their offspring, and the benefit of society in general) classed as bigotry in your mind too?
