This is an argument from the link posted ^ way upthread, which I think is worthy of serious consideration. Substitute 'SRS' for 'amputation' etc
"Another argument against elective amputations is a socioeconomic one: because of the high costs for medical treatment, rehabilitation, early retirement, and lost working income which would stress the society, elective amputations should not be allowed. Public financing for elective amputations is ethical permissible only if the amputations are strictly necessary to cure a severe disease, but not when they are performed because of aesthetic, erotic, or financial interests. But since amputations cannot be justified as a medical therapy for BIID, they have to be excluded from public financing with regard to the principle of justice."
It then goes on
"Amputations require lifelong follow-up care ..... the annual median cost for goods and services for the survivor of a below the knee amputation is approximately $105,000; possibly lost income not yet regarded. A welfare state has to finance these costs, even for a devotee who signs a waiver declaration before the elective amputation."
Actually I'll post the link again so it's easy www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265160802588194