NHS wont pay for toddler to walk again

[elesbells]

here

Beansprout - my mother has lung cancer, diagnosed five years ago, having smoked for forty years. (She started before the Doll findings were published, and stopped as soon as she was diagnosed.) As well as a substantial lung tumour, she has had in excess of 10 brain tumours. Over the past five years her treatment on the NHS has probably cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. She has suffered substantially as a result both of the tumours and the side-effects of the extensive treatment she has undergone. She does not complain, and would be the first to say that the disease is the result of her own choices.

In her working life, she was: an inland revenue inspector; a trades union official; a teacher (for 25 years); and a volunteer and then a manager at the Citizens Advice Bureau. As a highly intelligent and humane woman, she excelled in all of these. There are hundreds of people whom she taught, and vulnerable people (asylum-seekers, victims of domestic abuse, people in poverty...) to whom she gave advice at the CAB, who would testify to her unusual gifts. I know this because I have seen the presents and cards that she has been given on practically a weekly basis throughout her working life.

How dare you imply that someone like my mother does not deserve the best fucking treatment.

Well said, PW.

Denying treatment to smokers is a slipperly slope. Do you then deny treatment to the obese because they brought their conditon on themselves? Do you next decide to deny treatment to people who have silly accidents in A and E.

The next step is to then deny treatment to the elderly or prehaps to decide that an unemployed person with cancer is not worth curing.

I ended up with severe postnatal depression. Prehaps its could be argued that if I brought it on myself by deciding to have a baby. If I get postnatal depression a second time should I be denied treatment for being stupid enough to have a second baby.

Smoking might be a stupid thing to take up, but smokers are still human beings.

Gosh, no - treatment shouldnt be denied to anyone, ever.

It's a nice sentiment, but in reality treatment is denied to people frequently, because the pot of money is not infinite, and the NHS is expected to be cost effective. I don't think that treatment should be denied to people because of past choices, and it is a public service, so some things (like drugs and alcohol services for example) are for the public good as well as individual gain. The prosthetics and wheelchair services are not well funded - certainly in comparison with cancer, for example. I suspect they don't have the public visibility (after all it is politicians who make the ultimate decisions here).

I can kind of understand the NSH POV on this, just look how fast children grow. I can also understand the parents POV as if I were in that position I would want them to treat my daughter (God forbid it happens)

There was a young boy in my area who has had meningitis and lost both arms and legs, there has been OOODLES of fundraising and giving for him. Maybe the commenting people on the sun should stop complaining and dig into their pockets...

DH makes said limbs.

They cost a fortune, and children need new ones every few months (think how often you need to buy new trousers/shoes for your children).

They do make teeny tiny legs, I know from the days when DH comes home distressed at having had to make legs for children smaller than DD , but they are basic - they do the job and that is it - even those cost a hell of a lot.

It happens all the time. You could have the headline about my ds1 'NHS won't pay for treatment for child to speak' (they have always refused to provide SALT sessions as they officially won't provide hands on SALT for children who won't get better in 6 weeks now locally). We've had to pay for it for the last 6 years.

There are children locally who have to wait years for an appropriate wheelchair.

Actually I do think its shocking, but then I've said for years the NHS needs complete reform.

The mother of this child was on Radio % last night and she clearly said that the NHS does provide prosethic legs for her little boy and that she was v. grateful to them for all the help they had received. However the legs provided by the NHS are heavy, uncomfortable and unsightly and quite simply not as good as the ones available privately, which cost aprox 6000 per leg (i think, it was bedtime when i was listening)

Her little boy currently needs new legs every quarter as he is growing so fast and so they have set up an appeal.

The issue raised by the mum was not that the NHS wont pay for any legs (as appears to be wrongly stated in the Sun article), the mum actually stressed several times that the NHS did provide a basic option (and thanked them for this). However, they were simply not as good as those available privately so they had set up an appeal fund to try and pay for private legs for him.

Therefore, NHS provides basic level of provision to toddler, tis not ideal that he doesnt get the best available legs on the NHS but he does get something that would meet his basic needs (as should everyone). This is as it should be surely.

Also agree with reallytired and other posters that NHS shouldnt select its patients based on particular criteria...where does that lead you???

They can't afford the private option, though.

NO ONE can. Hell, in the US, if you have healthcare insurance, that's what they're going to provide - the cheapest option.

And anything else you have to pay for yourself or find money to pay for it.

Every quarter?

Taht's £24,000/year. For years on end.

I don't see where ANY medical system can pay for that.

I saw this woman and her son on TV. They DO have legs, on the NHS, but the look like plastic with brown tights on....the privates ones are nicer, more life like. The NHS HAS provided legs for this little boy, but understandable mum wants better ones for him.
Im assuming there must be a comfort issue, not just a cosmetic one.

Well absolutely fair enough to start an appeal, but bad reporting (quel surprise from the Sun, eh?).
Private, top quality prosthetics are incredibly expensive, and if he needs new ones every six months I can see why the NHS doesn't provide them, sadly. Though some people do get them by taking their PCT to court, but that's hardly an ideal option.
Poor little boy though.

My comment earlier was not about them not treating him (should preview my posts!) but that as a mother I would want the best for my daughter, as any parent would. But I can see the NHS view that is too expensive.

I moan a lot about the NHS and wish things could be resolved, but I'm sure there would be uproar if the NHS chose to pay the £6k a quarter when a cheaper basic option was avaiable when they cannot afford to pay for life saving drugs for cancer.

I am glad there has been an appeal put forth. Its okay the general population moaning about the NHS should do something (i/e the Sun readers) but if they feel that moved, they should donate.

I find that a lot of the UK moan about various causes but dont put their hands in their pockets, which irritates me.

it is a sad fact that the pretty things cost more

which is why my dd has a bog-standard black wheelchair rather than a zippy purple number from Norway like she coveted once as it whizzed past her

I can see that they might be unwilling to provide better-looking legs for a toddler

as for comfort I don't know what the difference is but honestly however sad this is we can't expect the NHS to pay for the best-looking everything

There is a massive difference in function as well as looks between private and nhs prosthetics. I don't think looks matter in the slightest for a 16month old baby. As he gets older it might get more important though functionality will always be a priority, especially for a double amputee. NHS legs are heavy and hard work compared to private ones.

My son has two digital hearing aids. They are spirit 2 hearing aids and it would be possible for them to be programmed so that my son had a setting for a quiet room and a setting for loud enviromnent. My son only has one programme because that is all the nhs will provide.

If you want hearing aids with a volume control you have to go completely private and pay £2K per hearing aid plus maintaince costs. Its a pity that parents can't pay a top up fee for the extra work to be done to programme the volume control of the hearing aid.

However I think the part of the ethos of the nhs is that people don't pay top fees for better care. Rich and poor people get the same level of care.

Personally I have been happy with the nhs. A lot of people don't appreciate how lucky they are to have "free" (at point of use) health care.