To think this should be paid for out pf your own pocket

[Catvsworld]

I totally understand the want to not have children but unless getting pregnant accidentally would endanger your life of lead to other medical issues

Simply not wanting to have children should not be paid for by the tax payer as its not a medical issue its a want rather than a need and it's not as I'd there are not semi permant ways not to have children and condom and coil combined normally do the job

This is in light of the lady who won her case to be sterilised

Do you mean that contraception shouldn't be free?

Having children costs the country far more money in terms of nhs resources/education etc than a sterilisation op.

To refuse on the grounds of it not being medically necessary is the thin emd of the wedge and a small step away from refusing to treat people with injuries/illnesses caused by a lifestyle choice, like sports injuries or cancer caused by smoking.

I disagree. I think that if we have healthcare that is meant to be free at the point of use then contraception should be included in that. Including sterilisation.

Also, everyone pays for the nhs and I get very uncomfortable about self appointed people deciding who is worthy of using it based on their own prejudices.

I don't think it would endanger my physical health all that much to have another baby, but it sure as hell would endanger my mental health.

Goady shite is what this is.

I also disagree

If a woman wants to be sterilised or a man wants to have a vasectomy I think it should be easier to do.

Birth control is never 100% and it costs the nhs more with pregnancy than it does in sterilisation

Ok, so what about all the people who do want to have children? Why should my taxes pay for their choices?

And why should my taxes pay for condoms and coils for all these selfish people who want to have sex but don't want to get pregnant? Sex is a want rather than a need, the women can pay to get their coils fitted privately!

The cost of sterilisation is probably less than the cost of providing a lifetime of contraception, and certainly less than months of pre-natal care.

Pull your head out of your arse. Well done on being less enlightened than the majority of commenters on the Daily Fail article this morning.

What a weird point of view. I'm almost wondering if it's a reverse...

Free contraception is a massive step forward for women. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

So you're against sterilisation not other contraception provided by NHS?

Well, now, if you replace 'sterilisation' with 'IVF' in your post, you end up with a logically equivalent argument given that not having a child is neither life threatening nor will lead to further medical issues (you could, of course, make the case for psychological harm, but your post implies we're talking about purely physical consequences). It would be arbitrary to deny sterilisation whilst granting IVF.

Given that the woman is mentally capable of making her own decision, and given that (as someone noted) children cost far more than one operation, I cannot see the outrage.

What gives you the right to medical assistance with giving birth over somebody who knows they will never want children and wishes to be steralised?

Surely it's a good thing that men and women are responsible enough to persue forms of contraception rather than leaving it up to the fertility gods to decide. If people had to pay £8.05 or whatever a prescription is nowadays for it every three months or whatever, they may be more inclined to 'hope for the best'. That isn't a good thing!!

YABU

I don't know the costs of the medication but 20 odd years of being on the pill must more or less balance out the cost of being sterilised and then some?

As far as I know the copper coil is the cheapest form of contraception for the NHS and can you imagine the outcry if that was enforced as the only option available to women?

What an odd and selfish post OP

ALL contraception should be free.

Yabu

Do you think that IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS too then? After all having children is a want not a need.

Yabu

Absolutely no idea what the op is referring to. But sterilisation is contraception and that, as it currently stands, is free.
To the poster who pointed out the difference between her physical and mental health. There shouldnt be one. So, if you look at the wording of the requirements for a termination, it specifies both. If continueing with a pregnancy will damange mental health then it is perfectly legal and justified to terminate the pregnancy.

The only things that I think should be paid for, are the breast augmentations, and such. But, people can and do work their way around that.

what a ridiculous post
we are buckling under the weight of paying for everything

paying for someone to be sterilised rather than take contraception or have an unwanted child is an excellent choice. If you are talking about the case I think you're talking about then it should not have taken her so long to get agreement

you sound like someone out of the 13th century who think having babies is a punishment for sex and that everyone should just cope with it

have you ever heard the word "overpopulation"?

A lot of doctors would argue that being pregnant is inherently more dangerous/risky to all women than not being pregnant, so your entire starting point is null and void

But what a very strange opinion to have. What do you think the cost of providing steralisations is compared to the cost of providing maternity services for unwanted/unplanned babies, or compared to the cost of terminations?

And "Simply not wanting to have children should not be paid for by the tax payer" but Simply wanting to have children should be?

You make no sense, sorry.

Are you serious OP? It costs the state hundreds of thousands of pounds to educate and provide healthcare for a child up to the age of 18.

If anything, the state should give money to childless people as a sort of 'thank you' for saving them money?

You aren't doing anyone any favours by adding to the world's population crisis.

YABU.

Obviously it's biologically impossible to ever have absolute sexual equality re: pregnancy and/or contraception, but free and varied choices are a huge step in the right direction and a hallmark of a civilised society.

Condoms and coils cost the NHS, as do all the other forms of contraception. However, contraception is cheaper for the NHS/taxpayer than abortions, pregnancies, child birth, child benefits, education etc. If someone wants to be sterilised then, in my eyes, that is a form of contraception and should be free. If they then changed their mind and wanted it reversed, maybe that is a grey area - but that is also the reason why most people opt for reversible contraception until they are certain they know they do not want children.

YABU - I'm not for some cosmetic surgery that's paid for by the NHS but sterilization should be free.

Is sterilization reversal free? I guess that could be more debatable depending on the circumstances.

I'm so glad I'm not in charge of the NHS - the NHS has to make thousands of impossible decisions everyday, it must be extremely difficult if not impossible to have to choose where the money goes.

The NHS can't afford to pay for everything, it's broke.

Absolutely no idea what the op is referring to

Article in the paper about a woman who 'won' the right to be sterilised because she didn't want kids. I think she was about 30. Predictably the article is followed by comments such as 'shame her mother didn't have the same idea' and 'what's the point in being a woman then', you know, exactly the same as when a man decides to have a vasectomy.

A friend of mine struggled to get sterilised after 4 (yes, 4!) dcs because she was only 26 and was pg when she asked and therefore 'hormonal'.

Yabu.

Condoms are extortionate and contraception is full of hormones that can really wreak havoc with a woman's body especially long term. Not everyone wants to have all of those side effects and if they know they absolutely don't want children they have the right to prevent that happening forever.