(April 19, 2016 at 11:57 am)paulpablo Wrote:(April 19, 2016 at 11:45 am)Mathilda Wrote: Ok let me put it another way Paulpablo.
There is a medical condition X and a treatment for it Y.
I am not going to tell you what X and Y are to avoid unconscious bias.
How do you determine whether it should be available on the NHS?
It's a good question, how do you determine what should be available?
Personally for me I couldn't give a simple blanket statement for such a complex question and I'd have to judge each case individually.
Example.
Should the NHS pay for plastic surgery if someone has a big nose. If someone has a little bit of an oversized nose but is emotionally unstable in dealing with it then I'd say no, maybe some therapy, if sufficient funds are available and it doesn't hold up anyone else waiting for more important treatment.
If someone had a nose that was 5 inches long then I'd definitely consider surgery for that person. But that would have to be in a situation where money is available and there aren't people waiting for more important treatments.
So what about a person with a 4 inch lump on their face compared to a 4 inch nose? Or a 3 inch nose?
The problem is that the lines that you choose are arbitrary and are based on your own personal feelings and cannot be explained to other people. You are using a top down approach whereas you should be using a bottom up approach. You could instead ask the following questions:
How does the medical condition effect the quality of life of the patient?
Will the medical condition heal itself or does the patient have it for life?
What are consequences of not treating the patient?
Will we be having to treat other related medical conditions instead if we don't treat it?
How much does the treatment cost?
How effective is the treatment?
Are there other forms of treatment that we can consider instead and do they work?
How does this compare to other medical conditions and treatments?
Would our money improve more people's lives for the better if we spent it elsewhere?