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?

Self inflicted obesity, lung cancer caused by smoking, liver disease caused by alcohol...Same for any Illness caused by recreational drugs.

The NHS wouldn't be in the state its in, if this were the case

I also think weight loss surgery should be self funded.

Weight loss surgery is funded by the NHS because it is cheaper than paying for medical treatment of illnesses caused by being overweight. It is why there is a BMI limit. This is the point where it becomes cost effective.

Not all infertility is age related and lots of women are trying for years before they seek help.

I don't think the NHS will do IVF over the age of 40/42 depending on postcode.

Compared to the other money thrown at families IVF is a small cost.

Anyone injured by horse riding or skiing. The two most dangerous sports there are, totally unnecessary to do, and self inflicted.

I agree, IVF isn't curing anything. It's giving someone something they want, just like they might want a straighter nose or bigger breasts

Also, IVF is being touted here as a miracle solution, but what about the people for whom IVF makes things worse? A friend of mine has made multiple suicide attempts after IVF failures. I can't help but think she would have been better off getting counselling to help her accept she couldn't have kids

@comingoutofmycageandillbedoingjustfine but then if you did that, babies would die. In their thousands each year because someone felt or factually knew they couldn't pay for it

@MeinKraft thank you. That seems such a silly thing for me to have asked now as your answer makes a lot of sense

It should be built into the cost.

If 1% of hip replacements need revision surgery, at a cost of £20,000 per go, each hip replacement should cost £200 more.

So, as someone who needed help with conception (not quite at the IVF stage although I was on the list for a year..) and also had non cosmetic liposuction for stage 3 lipoedema, I can honestly say that paying for fertility treatment wouldn't have bothered me as bringing a child into the world was my choice.

Paying out my entire divorce settlement for multiple surgeries to remove painful diseased fat that would have seen me confined to a wheelchair in the next decade and caused either my legs to get so big that the skin splits and I end up with infections or my body fills with so much fluid that my lungs fill and I drown, (both of which happened to my mum early last year,) and fixing the leaky veins in my leg so I didn't bleed to death during the liposuction, however has been an utter slap in the face from our so called health service. Each of my knees was 24ins in circumference this time last year, with my waist being 33 ins and my bust 36. Having a genetic progressive disease certainly isn't a lifestyle choice and I've resented the 10s of thousands its cost me.

I agree about the IVF and lesbians. Being a lesbian isn’t infertility. Why should the NHS pay?

Elderly woman on breakfast TV today, mid to late 80s.
As part of the interview she matter of factly mentioned she was awaiting double knee and hip replacements.
To me that is ludicrous. Probably >£100k in costs and yet NICE won’t fund certain meds for younger people requiring life saving/prolonging expensive treatment. Illogical.

Guys! I’ve found our resident psychopath!

Just to be absolutely clear… You think ill people in hospital should be charged for food?

I agree. The wait lists are massive, she won’t be a priority and will probably pass away before. Waiting doesn’t guarantee anything.

So basically instead of campaigning to get more medications on the NHS, the state should commit ageism and say people aren't worth it over a certain age?

NHS should not fund-
Gender reassignment surgery
Cross sex hormones
Health tourism

NHS should fund-
Counselling early on for Trans MH issues
Family therapy for internalised homophobia/claims child is trans
Heavy reinvestment in CAMHS
Provision & early intervention to parents of SEN children

Really? And go back to the pre NHS days, whereby women who can't afford maternity services are forced to give birth at home or in unregulated services.. increasing both infant and mother mortality rates. These ideas are 'fine' for the rich and support a divide society. Next someone will come along and suggest forced sterilisation. And what about rape cases? Really surprised by half of these suggestions. The Tories clearly have got into people's heads

Junkies coming in to the A&E on withdrawals

Thanks very much for the insult. How unbelievably bitchy of you. There would need to be careful ways to organise it to ensure patients eat properly, but yes, I don't think NHS money should pay for meals for people in general. Paying for food is something we all have to do.

On what basis is it ridiculous?

Hip and knee replacements offer amongst the best quality adjusted life years benefit for the cost of doing them.

You can't just say age, as I've done hip replacements on 90 year olds that have gone back to playing golf....

The problem is that if people paid for it then they'd expect it to be of reasonable quality.

Oh jeez, I ride horses, I like a glass of wine , the odd pizza... I'm getting feck all

Why do people become " junkies"?

One of the things some people will think but won't say is NICU care for edge of viability infants

My DD was a 23 weeker and her 4 month stay cost the NHS thousands, probably more than most people would ever receive in their entire lifetimes

She's worth it, to me. But then there are other examples where it just prolongs suffering and you don't know until you're there. Bitter experience (my DS died from lung complications and was a similar gestation to DD)

This is a common argument. What jumps out is the middle class slant to it. Yes, smoking is a known risk for many illnesses. Most smokers are of the age when tobacco products were still promoted, attributed with health benefits and glamorised, same with alcohol.

How about if a very wealthy banker crashes his very expensive, fast car at high speed, should he be denied treatment?

What about the over thinking middle class aspirational woman with heart disease because overthinking and stress made her ill. She knows the risk but still does it because she's looking to aspire.