What should the NHS not fund?

[Username721]

Saw a thread on IVF for lesbians and some people felt that IVF should not be for anyone on the NHS. So it got me thinking.

Is there anything you feel should be exclusively private treatment? The ones often debated are things like weight loss surgery, cosmetic procedures, treatment for avoidable illness such as smoking-induced ones, liver failure through alcohol abuse, drug rehabilitation…

Thoughts?

This thread prompted me to find the following quote about the novel Brave New World:

"One of Huxley’s purposes in the novel is to critique modernity and capitalism’s continual “emphasis on the need to replace the old by the new” (Booker 64). No older people means no one to make historical connections, to stop working and being productive, to have time for reflection, or to pass on possibly heretical ideas to the younger generations. An aging population can bring up uncomfortable topics such as caring/nurturing responsibilities.

"One of the current arguments against legalizing human euthanasia is precisely that older people may feel themselves to be too much of a burden on their families and may feel pressured by society to pass away rather than remain a living old person. If Western societies continue on the path toward fighting aging at every turn and glorifying youth, they may find that all of the positive aspects of old age are buried and young people have no tolerance for seniors or their contributions."

In the World State, people are artificially kept at around 30 years old until they die around 60. This way, everyone works efficiently right up to the end of life. They're working on techniques to shorten childhood. Babies are lab-produced as required by the economy.

I didn't quite realise that people are already so eager to see human lives as little more than economic units. It's horrifying.

We need to stop free hospital transport and free meals.

Hospital meals make up around 0.5% of NHS spending, it's a tiny portion of the budget and the benefits to patient recovery save money - hungry, malnourished people take longer to recover and have worse outcomes.

Non-emergency patient transport equates to around 0.4% of the budget. It is only available in specific circumstances where a patient cannot transport themselves and after some treatments (e.g., dialysis) it is necessary. Only patients who have a medical need, or a cognitive/sensory impairment, or significant mobility needs, or are travelling to or returning from haemodialysis, or have a safeguarding concern are eligible.

Cutting these two things will not save very much money at all but it will worsen outcomes for patients, particularly those who are already vulnerable or at risk.

Lots of things aren't life-threatening. A broken arm, for instance, will eventually heal on its own.

Odds of success for women under 35 according to the NHS website are 32%. So granted it's not the best odds but we're far from "incredibly small" chances.

Putting my hardhat on for a good flaming here but here goes...

I actually don't have any issue with people u35 getting IVF. In fact I'd be in favour of more opportunities for i.e single females. What I don't really agree with is 35+.

The argument of "well you should have to pay your own maternity care costs because it's a lifestyle choice" doesn't really wash when waiting SO late to have children is also a lifestyle choice. We really need proper sex education in school as they make it sound like you only have to look at the sperm on a towel across the room to get pregnant, when in reality the average 19yo might take a few months and the average 32yo might take a few years. Instead we kind of lull women into this false sense of "it's incredibly easy to get pregnant" AND "yes you really can have it all" so what results is huge amounts of women focusing on travelling and careers in their 20s then getting slapped in the face with the TTC struggle in their 30s and threads full of MNers telling them of course it's not too late, when statistics show fertility falls off a cliff, defects and disabilities rise, and life expectancy of the child is decreased.

But that's only if we have to cut "lifestyle choices" stuff like drunks falling over and obese people needing knee replacements without any consequences (a fine / needing to actually lose weight). If not then I really don't see how "lifestyle choice" IVF is any different. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@Iam4eels I never realised they were such a small part of the budget but I certainly don't think either should be cut.

The only place in Scotland that does dialysis for kids is Glasgow. Imagine the cost of that 2 or 3 times a week from the Highlands or the Borders. Guess who got chatting to a taxi driver in the coffee shop. He was waiting on a couple of kids to take them back to Edinburgh.

There is bound to be other things that are very specialist that are done in few places requiring £££ transportation.

@neitherofthem That poster just wants to stop people dying on the streets, but not to get urgent medical treatment.
People in victorian times used to get limbs healing badly because they were not set properly. A lot of people were left lame for example by a broken leg. It would just increase the amount of disabled people. This would include people who will need care and not be able to work because of a lack of medical treatment.

The real issue is that people like this just think people can pay for it themselves and will, not realising that many people can not.

I think many women of over 35 want to have children but have been messed about by dickhead men. Not sure that is a lifestyle choice……

Anything that could be considered "non-essential", like IVF or cosmetic surgery.
Screening programmes, because the benefits are debatable.
Anything where it's merely postponing the inevitable (ie cancer treatment when the patient already has a terminal prognosis), with the exception of palliative care.

One of the people I care for went into hospital walking and was unable to when they were discharged 9 months later. So more things like physio in hospital should be available as the keep people healthier for longer. This person is 96, sharp as a tack but now constrained by mobility through being long term in hospital.

Cancer with a terminal prognosis!
You know people can live for 10 years with a terminal prognosis?
One of my friends live for nearly 7 years with a terminal prognosis. Her kids were glad the NHS funded her treatment.
Once you have less than 6 months to live you are placed on palliative care. Some people are on palliative care before that point. But terminal simply means we think you will die of this, although it could be quick or take many years.

@chaosmaker That is already supposed to happen. But there is a lack of occupational therapists.

In my opinion, the NHS should not fund cosmetic surgery purely for cosmetic purposes. It is essential that the limited resources of the NHS are prioritized for treatments that are necessary for medical reasons, and that have a significant impact on patient health and well-being. While cosmetic surgery may have some benefits, it is not essential for the overall health of patients and can be seen as an inappropriate use of NHS resources. Patients who wish to undergo cosmetic surgery purely for cosmetic reasons can still opt to do so privately, but it's important to ensure that the NHS funding is used to provide the most effective and necessary healthcare services to those who need them the most.

You do know surgery on burns victims can be purely for cosmetic reasons? I do not think children for example should be left with disfiguring injuries to their face because the NHS refuse to do cosmetic surgery.
Under NICE cosmetic surgery should never be done under the NHS simply for vanity. That means surgery that was done when I was a kid like pinning kids ears back, does not happen now.

I agree that surgery on burns victims can sometimes be necessary for cosmetic reasons, particularly in cases where disfiguring injuries to the face could have a significant impact on a child's physical and emotional well-being. While NICE guidelines state that cosmetic surgery should not be done under the NHS purely for vanity, it's important to recognize that there may be cases where cosmetic surgery is necessary to improve a child's quality of life and prevent long-term psychological trauma.

I don't mind fertility treatment but it should be limited to 2 kids

Max 1 child via IVF on NHS.

I don't agree with IVF being available via NHS but it's 1 child max so your point doesn't stand

Shocking that some people think IVF shouldn't be funded.

IMO, paying all these middle level managers that go to meetings and contribute nothing to the system is a waste of money. All the people that go to see GPs for a runny nose, go to A and E with a fever and regularly do not attend their appointments - that is a waste of money and resources.

It's currently limited to one child.

How's about stop treating all the smug cunts

@flutterbyebaby Finally a proposal I can support.

Not what I've seen to be honest working in healthcare. It's rarer just for people to suddenly die like the queen for example. It seems to be a deterioration over years and years because they can delay it. I'm sure the queen probably had an advanced decision in place not to move her to hospital and commence treatment.

@Fifi0000 Of course people deteriorate over years and years. My gran at 97 could dress herself without help, but she was not the same as she was 10 years earlier. Similarly my mum who died of cancer died quickly after diagnosis. She was still cooking and doing housework weeks before her death. But she was not as physically able as she was 10 years before when she would go hiking.
I am in my fifties with a chronic health condition. I am not as healthy as I was 10 years ago but I assume have many years to go. That is ageing.

And the Queen had been deteriorating visibly for quite a few years although the Royalists denied it.

IVF. Extremely low success rate and very expensive. Especially when other areas are underfunded for serious, life threatening illness.

There's things like CPR for a long time Some of the public think they will spring back and everything will fine. The brain becomes so damaged from lack of oxygen after so long they will require mechanical ventilation and 24/7 care for the rest of their life. Some become really confused and distressed to be hospital. I'd rather be dead after that long without oxygen. I think advanced decisions need to be more widely talked about sometimes death isn't the worst thing.