Donate SIGN UP

Is this a good use of NHS funds given the present financial situation?

Avatar Image
Baldric | 10:43 Tue 22nd May 2012 | News
69 Answers

Considering the NHS was founded to provide health care for the masses


61 to 69 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Avatar Image

Having children is a lifestyle choice - I fail to see why my taxes should pay for anybody's (straight or gay) lifestyle choice.
14:01 Tue 22nd May 2012
if they are vital then they won't get rid of them, but they'll commission them differently.
what are they getting rid of that is vital?
first off i speak from experience, so it's not throwing out loose comments. Mental health units are being closed, some pared down, perhaps integrated into other units. This is causing a lot of problems for the people who use these services, and many of those who work in these places have seen their jobs go, and those left are having to take on ever more work. There is a lot more i could add, but this is something that won't pay dividends in the longer term, as more mentally ill people end up with no back up and often back on the street.
In fairness em, that sounds a lot like most hospitals at the moment, rightly or wrongly. I think a lot of services are being reviewed and seeing whether what they're doing is actually cost efficent as well as good patient care. It's my experience that more work is being done in the community rather than in units so to speak. My dads been a carer for years for older patients with mental health issues and learning difficulties, loads of them have been hospitalised most of their lives and are now too institutionalized to live what I guess would be considered a normal life. So I guess there's a case for both sides of the coin, community work and unit work. Maudsley still seems to be going fairly strong though.

I agree mental health needs to stay high up on the list of priorties but my experience (in my own little paeds world) is that it still is regarded as high priority.
China, i have seen how badly care in the community actually worked, and some poor souls have just been left high and dry.
There was a woman on the news last night who had spent £34,000 of her own money on IVF treatment and yet still had failed to become pregnant.

She was moaning because she felt that it was unfair that the NHS hadn't picked up the tab.

So, she expected £34k of treatment giving money be diverted to her to satisfy her lifestyle choice - and yet after £34k being spent she still wouldn't've been pregnant.

I understand each IVF course is in the region of £2,000, and therefore she's had 17 courses.

If somebody can't get pregnant naturally and can't get pregnant after 17 IVF attempts, isn't nature telling her there's a reason why she can't get pregnant?
Some women choose to have a career than starting a family. It becomes 3 times more difficult for a woman in their 40's to conceive via IVF than those in their 20's and so additional attempts.

Therefore taking age into account IVF should only be given once for all women.
People trying unsuccessfully for babies can suffer psychological damage & depression; which will be a health issue. Why not assist in their well-being however necessary.

NHS might be for the masses but lots of us choose not to use it; my share is going begging.
So y ou assist in their wellbeing by helping them to get over their childlessness.

61 to 69 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Is this a good use of NHS funds given the present financial situation?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.