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?

So I have to wonder what other medicinal conditions - in your expert medical opinion - ought to be excluded from treatment under your public health system. Or is it just the ones you are grossly ignorant about?

*medical

Fucking autocorrect

Your auto correct already knows how to talk a about marijuana. I'd say it's perfect for you.

(April 19, 2016 at 11:26 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 10:03 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't know about SRS being covered by insurance but I don't think it should be covered by the NHS.  I just don't find it reasonable.  People should be free to change their bodies in that way however they want but not to force other people to pay for it via taxation.

I don't find it reasonable that I have to pay taxes for people who smoke to get medical treatment for lung cancer, or for that matter anyone who eats unhealthily and does not eat organic food including their 5 a day. I don't find it reasonable for people to be treated for depression or psychiatric issues because their bodies function perfectly normal. I don't find it reasonable to pay for people who have broken their legs. They should have been more careful in the first place.

I don't find it reasonable to cure people who were born with an affliction that they had no choice over because that's the way they were obviously meant to be.

People should be free to change their bodies and brains in order to fix them but not to force other people for it via taxation.

At least I would be saying all this if I used your logic.

It's not logic it's just what I find reasonable.  It's my opinion. I'm not rigid in my opinion on this.

In the situation as it is the NHS service is pretty stretched, if that wasn't the case then I'd say let Bob get free surgery to have tits or let Sarah have a free cock between her legs and have two testicles free of charge.

Being emotionally unstable about what you're dealt with in life is going to happen, how much people can expect for free from other members of society to help deal with this is decided by opinions and trying to be reasonable about what to decide.

 I wouldn't fund a man who want's to become a woman who changes her mind and wants to change back to a man and then changes their mind again, it could go on indefinitely.

If a rich banker becomes poor and wants to kill himself I don't think he should be funded by tax to stop him killing himself, or girls who have small tits and feel depressed and want free surgery, or just someone who's ugly. 

Someone who smokes and has lung cancer has already paid for their own treatment with the tax paid for on the cigs they bought.  They should be able to walk into any hospital, skip the waiting line and sit right down on a bed, they paid for it already.

Anyone who eats unhealthy probably should face the consequences to an extent. Not that they shouldn't receive some treatment but just not free lipo suction every month, it just won't be healthy for them they need to start eating healthy.

Broken legs are usually accidents, if someone is purposefully breaking their legs over and over maybe they should lose their freedom and be sectioned, if it's an accident then treatment isn't that expensive relatively speaking.  

I'm basically saying if it was a charity, I wouldn't donate to it, I don't think taxes should go towards it.  I think it's more of a personal issue that people should save up money towards.

(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.

(April 19, 2016 at 11:46 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So I have to wonder what other medicinal conditions - in your expert medical opinion - ought to be excluded from treatment under your public health system.  Or is it just the ones you are grossly ignorant about?

Probably species dsyphoria, to name one.  Not that I don't think it should be treated with therapy but that it shouldn't be treated by surgically transforming a person into looking more like a different species of animal by using taxes.

(April 19, 2016 at 12:02 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 11:46 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So I have to wonder what other medicinal conditions - in your expert medical opinion - ought to be excluded from treatment under your public health system.  Or is it just the ones you are grossly ignorant about?

Probably species dsyphoria, to name one.  Not that I don't think it should be treated with therapy but that it shouldn't be treated by surgically transforming a person into looking more like a different species of animal by using taxes.

Oddly enough, I can't find anything on that medical disorder. One might be tempted to think you made that shit up.

So much for your expert opinion.

(April 19, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Oddly enough,  I can't find anything on that medical disorder.  One might be tempted to think you made that shit up.

So much for your expert opinion.

CL came up with it first. Never knew it existed, it's supposed to be extremely rare, but obviously a good enough anchor for certain people to get hooked for justifying abstruse arguments.

(April 19, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 12:02 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Probably species dsyphoria, to name one.  Not that I don't think it should be treated with therapy but that it shouldn't be treated by surgically transforming a person into looking more like a different species of animal by using taxes.

Oddly enough,  I can't find anything on that medical disorder.  One might be tempted to think you made that shit up.

So much for your expert opinion.

1) You made up that I have an expert opinion I never claimed I do.

2) You saying you're tempted to believe I made it up doesn't mean you can reliably conclude I did make it up.

It makes sense if some people feel distressed that they aren't the right gender some people might feel they aren't the right species.

Somedays I feel mildly upset that I wasn't born with the body of Mike Tyson, or Kobe Bryant.