To say a period does not cost £25

[jinjkl]

I hear the story on the radio about MP Danielle Rowley standing up in parliament to speak out about period poverty.

Good on her - it shouldn't be a taboo subject and I feel for the homeless women or those in poverty who cannot afford basic luxuries. But I can't agree with her statement that each period costs £25, and that women spend £500 a year on sanitary products.

You can buy a 20 pack of supermarket own brand tampons for £1 and that lasts a whole period. Even if you buy Tampax you won't be spending more than £3. Sanitary towels are about the same.

You can pick up some painkillers for under £1. I know some women have extreme periods which require prescription medication, but this is uncommon and it still wouldn't cost anywhere near £25.

Some would probably argue it's the cost of replacing soiled knickers, but the whole period poverty campaign is centred around sanitary protection, not giving women women to buy new knickers after a period (I wish!)

I want sanitary protection to be free as much as the next person, but I just can't abide by these exaggerations. Any woman knows they don't spend £25 every month on their period, and if you are spending this much there is something seriously wrong.

I'm in the States so can't actually afford to just ' go and see a doctor about it'.

There are probably 7 family health issues that would come before my heavy periods if we had the money for any of them.

Well, I've now booked a GP appointment to discuss my own heavy periods and flooding issues again, as it has been a few years since I last did. The appointment is mid July. We shall see how that goes. I had an ultrasound scan last time, which revealed nothing so I just went onto tranexamic acid. That did generally help for quite a while, but things are getting worse now despite continued use of it.

To be fair, the doctors at my surgery have been very good on most issues so if their hands are not too tied now then do I dare to hope? I want to hope. I want to be rid of something that at times is making me scared to go out.

The fact is the NHS is crippled under financial strain. Savings must be made in order to protect the unique institution we enjoy in the UK. If identifying non essential procedures to be cut to make some savings then I wholeheartedly support it. Heavy, painful periods are not life threatening. Inconvenient yes, but not life threatening. I speak as someone who has suffered with them all my adult life.

In the news today two further women’s procedures are being cut.

And yet, with the caveat that I’m aware MN isn’t a hive mind, a thread about Viagra being available on the NHS was met with a resounding “yes they should be treated on the NHS”.

Massively depressing

What would save a lot more money, user56 is cutting out some of the dated management practices, archaic procurement procedures and shocking waste that exists in the NHS. It would honestly save millions. Without impacting one jot on patient care.

it would save money for the nhs initially but not in the long term.
and not to mention the costs to the patients and their employers and the benefits provided...

Viagra (the brand) isn't prescribed in England unless ED is associated with a serious health condition like diabetes.

Otherwise Sildenafil or other non-branded generics are prescribed. They're very cheap.

@TopDog123

I was using Viagra generically.

That said if the NHS suggest cuts to SOME non-essential services, surely ALL non-essential services should be looked at.

@Clionba absolutely agree there is obscene administrative waste that needs to be addressed. Savings need not get in isolation !!!!

Essential and non-essential services are cut. CCG will vary to CCG. Decisions and priorities are usually based on cost and nothing else.

Most medications are cheap. Far, far cheaper than referrals, investigations and surgical interventions.

I haven't read the full thread.. but mine can easily cost around £20 accounting for buying OTC tranexamic acid every month (£about 8) plus an array of tampax and super extra long pads, usually from Boots in train station where everything costs more, plus painkillers.

Without wanting to entertain the period troll, I would have to disagree with you OP, at least for my own experience.

And it's very hard to be taken seriously by some doctors, although others have been very good.

Decisions and priorities are usually based on cost and nothing else

Certainly doesn’t work like that in our area. I’m denied treatment on a ridiculous “computer says no” situation that has left the NHS meaning over the next 20 or so years they will have paid way more than the simple procedure. The processes are creating in unnecessary waste.

Yes they are. Projected costs aren't relevant to that budget holder in that CCG at that time because it's this budget for this year that they're supposed to manage.

But the NHS has been short sighted for a long time now but it's the nature of the beast.

Can you name which obscene administrative waste should be identified and cut?

YANBU - i have horrific periods and spend £10 max on pads and drugs

User56 - actually yes extreme blood loss CAN be life threatening and indeed the underlying causes - which can include cancer are. Besides which I'd love to know if any treatments for non life threatening conditions MEN have, are being cut? Like ED? I'd bet not!

And as I said in a previous post - I strongly believe treating something which causes girls & women to miss education, to miss work, to be disadvantaged and which long term results in them needing more expensive and extensive treatment would actually SAVE MONEY! Not just for the nhs but the country as a whole.

User56, you are talking utter bollocks.

Heavy periods can be heavy blood loss. Regularly. In what universe is regular heavy blood loss not a serious problem?

Attitudes like that are part of the reason why those of us with such problems cannot usually get taken seriously.

Are you really saying that me returning home with my lower half soaked in blood and with it running down my legs is not a problem? What is your definition of problem periods then? Or problem bleeding at all?

Or are you implying that those of us saying that we have such problems are just whingers and crackpots because after all, it's only a period, innit?

I know someone who collapsed due to blood loss during her period. Very heavy periods. During one she just lost way too much and was unconscious for about 20 minutes and blue lighted to hospital for a transfusion.

Of course it can be a serious problem, and we need to be taken seriously.

Heavy, painful periods are not life threatening. Inconvenient yes, but not life threatening.

what rubbish, of course they can be life threatening, and beside that, the economic loss in taxes paid and working days lost hugely outweighs the cost of treatment.

the economic loss in taxes paid and working days lost hugely outweighs the cost of treatment.

...just not for the nhs...

...just not for the nhs...
Not really in a lot of the cases here. Had I been taken seriously the first time there would have been 15 years less of GP time, consultant's/associated staff time, scans, hospitalisations, prescriptions, plus every type of hormonal treatment going, etc etc.

My GP was very concerned when I went to him and he said I was in shock from bloodloss. He has tried to persuade me to have investigations and he would make an appointment for me. I can't face it. From prior experience, and from my mother's experience too, I absolutely know it's a waste of time, upsetting, another stress, and more frustration to have to be subjected to prodding and being pulled about only to be told nothing can be done. And judging by Graphistas post I'm right not to bother. I'm not keen to be subjected to intimate, uncomfortable, undignified inspection, when quite possibly money will dictate whether I receive treatment. Been there done that years ago to be told my condition could not be treated on the NHS......and when I attempted to challenge this I was then told oh we don't think you have this now! Quite convenient.

I agree with everyone who had said that if it were conditions that only effected men much more would be done, more money thrown at it and if not there would be a lot of very angry men.

So, respectfully, take your marvellous mooncup and see if it will double up as a gobstopper.

LyingWitch

user56 Sat 30-Jun-18 17:48:05
The fact is the NHS is crippled under financial strain. Savings must be made in order to protect the unique institution we enjoy in the UK

But what is the purpose of 'the unique institution'?

Isn't it there to serve women too?

My mother (as I mentioned upthread) was hospitalised with severe anaemia thanks to her prolonged, heavy periods. In the end she had a hysterectomy.

(In Ireland, so there was no squandering of NHS resources to treat a mere woman with her inconsequential problems).