how come your so set on it being mental?
im perfectly happy with the uk system...
its a condition, the treatment, is grs... a physical surgery cannot cure a mental problem...
R >

Quote from: Rachael on February 07, 2008, 10:16:34 PM
how come your so set on it being mental?
im perfectly happy with the uk system...
its a condition, the treatment, is grs... a physical surgery cannot cure a mental problem...
R >

Actually, I am in agreement with you, it isn't a mental problem.  At the same time, does it not strike you as odd that one is diagnosed by a shrink rather than a doctor?  I'm saying that it's a mismatch, if the NHS is claiming it to be a "medical" problem.  Psychiatrists, therapists, psychotherapists: these people are not qualified to diagnose a medical problem, only a mental one.  I'm arguing that the diagnosis should be taken away from shrinks since it's incongruous with a "medical" problem.

Lia

The argument against it that I would take is that being a self-diagnosed problem (a unique situation in both medical and psychiatric practice), with a really expensive (perhaps even cosmetic - after all here, if you can self-diagnose the problem, they can self-name the cure) solution, the people at large should not be forced to pay for it.

In the immortal words of the great American anthem, "It's your misfortune and none of my own."  (You want to move here, that's pretty close to our national motto.  And you just will not live it in the States, you will learn to love it - or, as we say - leave it)  Why should I pay (i.e. be forced to work) for your problems?  It's not a matter of national security.  It's not a matter of public health (like treating tuberculosis or cholera would be).  It's not a matter of the public welfare.  It is you, and you only, and in the States, that dime is on your bill alone.

Given that the budget of the National Health is a zero-sum game like almost all budgets (if you give to x, you are taking from y) then, ethically, you have to look at doing the greatest good for the greatest number, of making what little money you have do the most work, and that gets tough real fast.  For what it would cost to treat 100 TS persons you might well be able to treat thousands of others with different problems.  I have a very easy time making a choice between the few and the many.

the debate isnt about me, or anything to do with me, OR the us....
its about the uk system, where we do care about others problems...

'hey you has cancer, lol your bad!'

Well I'm sure that the argument still comes down to "we can treat 20 TS or provide better pre-natal health to 400 women"  - easy choice.  Money is the same everywhere when it comes to budget decisions. 

And dear, do remember that before you cross the pond.  You get cancer here, and don't have coverage - oh well.  Nobody lives forever.

Quote from: tekla on February 07, 2008, 11:58:10 PM
And dear, do remember that before you cross the pond.  You get cancer here, and don't have coverage - oh well.  Nobody lives forever.

After watching Sicko a few days ago, I'm guessing coverage isn't going to help you much either...

pwned
R >

Question here, Rachael, did you want to get into a debate or did you want an answer to your question? It seems like the former to me. The answer is there probably aren't any arguments that won't offend a trans person, just as there aren't any arguments for not funding prostate exams that won't offend a bio male over 50.

Dennis

that pretty much was what i wanted dennis... to see what people could say for the motion, not to debate it, but if people want to, thats fine by me...
R

Hmmm. I think the American system has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it, but I agree with Tekla as to prioritising, as in the example she mentions. At the end of the day, public healthcare does have a limited budget, and it's a valid argument to ask which is more important - treating 20 TS people or ensuring the health of 400 births.

To me though the question should be pushed higher, past the level of NHS funding and decision-making, to ask why so little money is spent on healthcare and education as opposed to, for example, military spending, government administration etc. I read stats in South Africa a few years ago indicating that if just one percent of military spending was redirected social programs, we could have a public healthcare system equal to the likes of France or Canada, in addition to vastly improved pubilc schooling and elderly care. That's an entirely different debate though, and doesn't deal with the situation as it is now.

I think it is going to be a tough call to find a convincing counter-argument to the budget question, as much as it pains me to say that.

something you all miss, is the NHS is very good... and this is one lacking area.... the budget allows for more than they actually treat...
the public view imo, is all that is against grs... as there is PLENTY of money that can be freed up from managerial sludge that can be spread around... neonatal and prenatal facilities are the best of the nhs's operations tbh...
and the nhs gets more money than 1% of the armed forces budget atm id wadger! our health service has a huge budget... the militery? um, not as well funded...
R

Quote from: Rachael on February 08, 2008, 04:56:40 AM
something you all miss, is the NHS is very good...

Point taken - I suppose my recent experiences have skewed my opinion somewhat, though I understand the PCT's reasoning. (I was denied coverage due to the relatively short duration of my visa)

As a counter-argument then, because a good debater would use budget as his trump card, you would have to prove your position that there is enough money to spread around, and that that money is for some reason NOt being spread to the Gender Clinics. Still a challenge, 'cause you'll probably need to get one of the geeks from the Stats or Actuarial departments to do the figures, but doable.

PS. No offense meant to Stats and Actuarial geeks. As a computer nerd, I find being called a geek a huge compliment. Geeks do rule the world, after all... 

Quote from: Rachael on February 07, 2008, 10:15:04 AM
yes they are
but its also not classed by the nhs as mental anymore... it IS medical.
R

Gender Dysphoria should never have been classified as a 'mental health' condition in the first place.....and the old guard clinics like Charing Cross GIC or 'West London Mental Health' (as they are also called) should be completely blown out...

I'm lucky I have the 'IS' card up my sleeve...

Quote from: Berliegh on February 08, 2008, 07:45:56 AM
Gender Dysphoria should never have been classified as a 'mental health' condition in the first place.....

Um, why not? Given what was known about the condition half a century ago or so, it was entirely reasonable to classify it as a mental one. No evidence whatsoever that it was something else. This is simply the way science works: if new data don't fit the theory, something ought to be corrected somewhere.

  Nfr

true dat....
ok this guy thinks hes a chick.... well that ain normal is it dr bob?
no dr fred
mentally ill dr bob?
yeah why not dr fred
ok then, any more like this fella and we can send them to the shrinkers for curing dr bob...
sounds like a plan dr fred.
R

^^^^^

Then the shrinkers sent him back to the doctors and said

"He is a woman in his head Dr. Bob."
"What do you mean shrinky"
"I mean you need to help him become a woman dr Bob"
"really are you sure"
"Positive"

"OH, ok then."

We got outsourced and resourced

wow, your finally learning about the medical profession....
it if lands on your desk, get it off asap... where it goes, doesnt matter, as long as its gone
R >