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?

@Tropicaliyes I know. I have self administered IV antibiotics at home rather than being in hospital. But there was struct criteria for which patients were suitable and these need to be in place.

@albapunk 100% agree. Instead of knee jerking to NICE Guidelines (which every elderly person will meet on the urgent pathway for every symptom) look at the actual benefit - to them and to use of resources.

I self-funded IVF X2, but absolutely do not want to have my life dragged on via expensive investigations, procedures and drugs. Treating the elderly to keep them alive to develop more natural health issues is ridiculous, and is crippling the NHS

This thread makes me despair. The attitude of "unless it affects me or mine, it shouldn't be funded".
The NHS has been deliberately underfunded for years. There's always money to be found and wasted in this country. HS2 anyone? Duff PPE? Non-doms?
Instead we want to judge what others deserve. Shame on anyone who does this.

Yea NHS procurement is an absolute disgrace and purposefully so in my opinion.

Large breasts can put a huge strain on your back, shoulders, neck and rib due to the weight they put on the front of your torso and the way they alter your posture. Even just slightly bigger than average can be too much

Agree. If this thread was adopted lots of people would die.
20 year old man out on the town drinking, gets attacks and suffers a head injury. Gets taken to hospital but they chuck him in the drunk tank. He dies.

Woman who needs a hip replacement ends up confined to bed with state paid carers and suicidal rather than getting the NHS care she needs.

What is the point in this goady thread?

I had IVF on the NHS- I have an medical issue which meant without IVF I would have never been able to conceive.

My and OH both work and both contribute to the NHS.

In respect of lesbians I do feel that all the necessary checks should be done first to ensure that they can't conceive if they can IVF is not necessary and instead assisted conception can be used with a sperm donor which is less intrusive for the host mother and costs less.
Fertility issues generally do not come without illness so the initial tests should be completed as standard why should work accept the pain and issues of periods and learn to live with them.

If you feel this way about fertility treatment which is in no way a persons self infliction how do you feel about alcoholics and smokers getting treatment that then expands to people speeding and breaking the law getting injured and hurt.

The NHS only offers around 60% of available treatments available there is already a stringent process in place.

To upset people and cause division.

Infertility is not a self-induced condition.

So you could say you brought your pregnancy on yourself so actually your pregnancy care and childbirth should be for you to deal with yourself. Doesn't seem very clever now does it? Such a small minded selfish attitude which is unfortunately way too common. No wonder we're in the state we're in as a country.

Exactly. Scummy behaviour.

The NHS should give priority to British citizens and those from countries with reciprocal rights.

Agree. IVF and maternity/delivery care beyond two kids (or maybe even one) should be self-funded. Those are lifestyle choices.

Nor is it a life-threatening condition.

We need to focus on those, the catastrophic situations. Let people self-fund otherwise.

@FlyOnAWing you make no sense then. I’m sure you didn’t meet that criteria until you had to take extra steps? I don’t know your situation but if for example you were on TPN,Tube, injections.. whatever.. They make sure before you can give yourself any treatment you stay in hospital to by the very least “teach” you how to administer it safely yourself.. or someone to do it for you.

This isn’t something that always happens in the time frame it should with sometimes needing you to put your foot down and push it gets done so you can go home or at least get the nurses to do it at home!

a lot of training can be done in a day or two’s inpatient stay however depending on when they are ready to send someone to train you, you can end up staying much much longer! Some people have been trained in a few hrs and send home the same day while I watched one wait over a week as the ones to train the patient kept having things come up, when they did come it took no time and the patient went home!

I have had inpatient stays where I would be told in the morning I’m going to be discharged today, then the discharge notes are not done by 5pm and they then refused to discharge me until the next day as they don’t discharge after a certain time! The next day would come and your non stop asking when this summary will be done so you can leave and it’s always when the drs can get the time to see you! I have even asked to leave without it and get someone to come back later to pick it up with medication and sometimes it’s allowed and others it’s not!

you stated people wouldn’t be taking up beds if they didn’t need to.. but they do though and it’s not always their fault! Sometimes they don’t even know they have the right to be treated at home until someone tells them and that’s when they can start that process (which has happened to me before) otherwise they can find themselves stuck in a rut waiting in hospital not knowing any different.

So you are pregnant with a third kid. You can't afford maternity care, tough give birth at home unattended. Baby is born in difficulty and needs an incubator you can't afford. Tough. Baby dies.

IVF is low hanging fruit, so always gets picked on first in these debates, but its a very emotive issue and by no means an easy choice.

And IVF alone won't resolve all the issues, where do you then stop.

What we don't want is a US style insurance backed system, because those on lower priced packages often find themselves not covered if the disease recurs, particularly cancers etc.

The NHS needs lots of work, a lot of its problems are not in the services it provides but how it is administered, it is hugely in-efficient. Unfortunately its the sacred cow you can't criticise, there are a vast number of really good things about the NHS, but also some very poor aspects that need fully re-constructing, and to get to that point you have to tell some people that their ideas or systems are carp, and that they don't like!

The NHS should fund physical healing of physical problems.

If someone is infertile because they have a physical problem like scarred tubes / shitty sperm / eggs that just can’t do it, they should get taxpayer-funded IVF.

If someone is perfectly fertile but does not want to have sex with a man, they should not be given thousands of pounds worth of taxpayer-funded IVF. Ie no free IVF for lesbians. A sexual preference is not a medical problem, and people without medical problems should not receive taxpayer money set aside for medical problems.

Definitely no drugs or surgery for transgender people, in the same way that we don’t hand out free diet drugs and liposuction to anorexics.

@Tropicaliyes No I did not have an in patient stay and had never had IV drugs before. I had a pc line fitted, shown how to administer in hospital at an outpatient appointment, then a visit at home by a nurse who watched me do it. Then I did it myself with a weekly outpatient appointment.
But you had to live with someone or at least have someone popping in every day to check on you.

@Tropicaliyes I agree a lack of staff leads to inefficiencies.

Things that cause pain and misery in the body should be funded such as treating endometriosis for example.
There is no right to have children and the world is overpopulated.
Also as previous posters said, the outcome is poor anyway and seems cruel. If you just couldn't have children and knew it then surely acceptance would be easier instead of having false hope.
Not funding it at all would end the postcode lottery.

Re IVF, yes and no. If there is a medical reason for the infertility then treatment/IVF should be funded for everyone. If there is no medical reason then no public funding.

Re self induced illnesses, I don't think treatment should be withheld, but if behaviour doesn't change then limiting treatment options. Eg if their liver is failing and they keep drinking then they may not be able to get a transplant. Not giving second knee reconstructions if they insist on running marathons continuously.

That's all theoretical of course, treatment is often so limited that people wait years for knee reconstructions etc anyway so normal life can't continue anyway, barely being able to walk for years let alone run.

What an unpleasant thread. I wish people would get back in their boxes r.e. IVF funding.

The NHS failed to diagnosis, let alone treat, my endometriosis for over 15 years. Fifteen years of agonising pain while the disease wreaked havoc on my organs. I have little pity that the result was the NHS having to fund IVF for me.

My baby is a life saving treatment. Anyone who hasn’t experienced infertility could never comprehend this.

Well one day THAT may just come back to bite you on the arse. What a ridiculous and ignorant comment~!!