Should the government pay for sex-change operations?

The_Minister

Inspired by a Labour councillor.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/jul/25/call-for-hse-to-axe-sex-change-ops-as-child-denied/

Call for HSE to axe sex-change ops as child denied aid
Conor McMorrow, Political Correspondent

Colm Keaveney: called for HSE reviewThe HSE should not pay for public patients to undergo sex-change operations abroad when cuts are being made to frontline services for children, a Labour Party councillor hass claimed.

Colm Keaveney, from Tuam in east Galway, has called for a review of all HSE expenditure after a child in his area was denied funding for essential hearing-aid implants. His comments come in the wake of recent reports that the HSE has paid for at least 22 public patients to undergo sex-change operations over the past decade at a cost of around of €63,000 for female-to-male operations and €30,000 for male-to-female procedures.

"When allocating scarce resources, we must establish what actually delivers best value for society and the individual," he said.

"Depriving children of necessary aids and appliances at this point in their life will have a devastating social outcome in later years when compared to some very expensive procedures being paid for by the taxpayer.

"While I understand this may be offensive to transgender people, I would ask them to look at this through the eyes of a parent and try to empathise with how they feel about their child's wellbeing.

"Given the dire straits the country finds itself in, it is vital that we focus government spending on areas that will deliver positive results for our society in the long run."

A spokeswoman for the Transgender Equality Network Ireland said: "I agree that it is regretful that the HSE is making cutbacks in service provision [but] transgender people are part of Irish society and are also taxpayers so they are entitled to access healthcare appropriate to their specific needs, just like other people living in Ireland."

She added that "the government is now in the process of working on legislation that will finally recognise the legal status of transgender people in Ireland."

It was recently reported that the HSE is funding sex-change operations under the Treatment Abroad schemes, where the HSE pays for the treatment in another EU country when it cannot be obtained in Ireland. Keaveney was speaking after being contacted by parents of a child with hearing difficulties.

The seven-year-old child, who has 35% hearing loss in both ears, may have to be taken out of mainstream education as the HSE has refused to fund hearing-aid implants at a total cost of €1,600 for the child.

A spokeswoman for the HSE said the organisation does not comment on individual cases.

I'm going to add a poll to this.

This proposal gives me some trouble.
On the one hand, I think the state should pay for sex-changes - they are a medical issue.
On the other hand, I think the deaf kid should take priority - if you have been waiting 20 years, you can wait another month or two; the child will have to leave school (taking the report on face value).

The problem is, you will, especially in the Recession, always have more deserving candidates for the funds than TSs wanting to changeover.

Realistically, we are all adults here, we all know that resources are limited and the government cannot pay for everything; very often it is an either-or situation, and a choice must be made.

smash

Should we pay for the cervical cancer vaccine? No, but we'll give this guy a sex change op...

There's a lot more important life changing ops and stuff that need to be done!

easyeason3

So who pays for the reverse operation if the patient changes their mind?

The_Minister

easyeason3 wrote: »

So who pays for the reverse operation if the patient changes their mind?

The opposition.

chin_grin

"If I don't get this operation, I could die."

vs

"If I don't get this operation, I'm living a lie/not being true to myself."

Yeah, I can see which is more important.

easyeason3

Can you currently get a breast enlargement or breast reduction operation in Ireland that is paid for by the HSE?
Or a tummy tuck?
Or excess skin removal?

Brendog

Should the Government pay for ...

breast enlargements?
Tummy tucks?
Face lifts?
Liposucktion?
nose jobs?
Botox?
Ear lifts?



NO!





Why should hard working people who have already gotten 20% pay cuts have to fork out for someones operation just because they want to be happy....

We're not happy about having to pay for it
You REALLY want it?

THEN YOU ****ING WORK FOR IT LIKE ANY NORMAL PERSON!!

Dravokivich

It's a cosmetic operation, not a life / death issue. Government should have no responsiblity over it at all.

Lando Griffin

easyeason3 wrote: »

So who pays for the reverse operation if the patient changes their mind?

An Bord Snip?

Viper_JB

Brendog wrote: »

Should the Government pay for ...

breast enlargements?
Tummy tucks?
Face lifts?
Liposucktion?
nose jobs?
Botox?
Ear lifts?






NO!

Hell, they should be paying for peoples teeth and they're not even doing that at the moment - and when I say them I mean us, it's our money, they're only the ones who squander it.

smash

I watched a show about it on Discovery one day and it was weird... A guy got a sex change to become a girl, and then became a lesbian. A girl got a sex change to become a guy, and then became gay. Would it not have been easier to stay as they were as they were after the opposite sex anyway?

caseyann

after a child in his area was denied funding for essential hearing-aid implants.

They denied this child that and paid for sex changes :mad:
Absolutely not.

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

I watched a show about it on Discovery one day and it was weird... A guy got a sex change to become a girl, and then became a lesbian. A girl got a sex change to become a guy, and then became gay. Would it not have been easier to stay as they were as they were after the opposite sex anyway?

because how you feel in your own body has nothing to do with who you're attracted to!

Banned Account

It depends on the subject to be honest - I would not pay for Brian Cowen to become a chick - ever.

I would, however, be prepared to pay for Mary Harney to become a man - I think it would be worth it just to remove the possibility that I may, someday end up feeling really uncomfortable at a supermarket checkout if she were to be infront of me paying for a box of super flow tampons:eek:

dahamsta

To the people going on about life-or-death: perhaps try reading the OP's post. I've yet to hear - arf, arf - of someone dying from "not hearing".

Well, there is traffic I suppose...

ibarelycare

steve06 wrote: »

I watched a show about it on Discovery one day and it was weird... A guy got a sex change to become a girl, and then became a lesbian. A girl got a sex change to become a guy, and then became gay. Would it not have been easier to stay as they were as they were after the opposite sex anyway?

Getting a sex change is not related to sexuality at all.

sligopark

...

Banned Account

sligopark wrote: »

wasn't there some word that the majority of sex change operations paid for the state were not for Irish citizens?

Did ou just make that up for the sake of inciting ire or do you have a link?

Just asking:rolleyes:

Terry

Absolutely not.
That money needs to be put away for when Harney gets so fat that she needs to have the side wall of her house knocked down, so that she can be removed and airlifted to the zoo hospital.

And probably keep a bit to treat future cervical cancer victims. They might not be able to get health insurance because of the lack of a vaccine.

sligopark

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Did ou just make that up for the sake of inciting ire or do you have a link?

Just asking:rolleyes:

no not trying to incite ire but did read something like this - did a quick google there and found nothing so feel free to disregard

weldoninhio

I think they should pay for the sex change ops, and on that note i am going to come out and admit, i've been living a lie.

I've never told anyone this before, but i'm a rich person in a poor persons body. I shall be canvassing my local TD to see if i can get funding so i no longer live this lie. I've always preferred the taste of champagne to Dutch Gold, i tried to live the Dutch Gold lifestyle but i've always known it wasn't me.

Dravokivich

dahamsta wrote: »

To the people going on about life-or-death: perhaps try reading the OP's post. I've yet to hear - arf, arf - of someone dying from "not hearing".

Well, there is traffic I suppose...

The issue in the report is an example of required operations that have been held back due to lack of funding while someone else had been funded for a cosmetic issue.

My response as I'm sure along with the others, was a generalised comment in regards to acknowledging that...

Banned Account

sligopark wrote: »

no not trying to incite ire but did read something like this - did a quick google there and found nothing so feel free to disregard

Was it perhaps in an issue of "xenophobe monthly" - it's kind of like the US courtroom drama approach -

"you're a muderer sir, aren't you"

"objection your honour"

"sustained"

"ok, sorry - disregard ... *teeheehee*"

starbelgrade

My initial reaction is to say no, however, I don't know a whole lot about the issues at stake & am open to persuasion or to listen to any good arguments to the contrary.

sligopark

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Was it perhaps in an issue of "xenophobe monthly" - it's kind of like the US courtroom drama approach -

"you're a muderer sir, aren't you"

"objection your honour"

"sustained"

"ok, sorry - disregard ... *teeheehee*"

there's a xenophobe monthly ?

but fair enough counter - post edited

Annasopra

chin_grin wrote: »

"If I don't get this operation, I could die."

vs

"If I don't get this operation, I'm living a lie/not being true to myself."

Yeah, I can see which is more important.

No - This isn't an either/or situation

"If I don't get this operation, I will suffer from serious problems down the line with being deaf"

vs

"If I don't get this operation, I might commit suicide and suffer from serious mental health problems"

stovelid

I don't think so. Certainly not when other areas are so underfunded.

Perhaps some kind of loan system could be devised for elective. cosmetic (as in not procedures that save lives) procedures like this

Annasopra

I didn't vote in the poll cause none of the options make sense - from my point of view yes the government should as it's a human rights issue

This blog post explains it much more eloquently then I could

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/07/26/gender-reassignment-surgery-limited-resources-and-positive-results-for-society/

Richard Noggin

Brendog wrote: »

Should the Government pay for ...

breast enlargements?
Tummy tucks?
Face lifts?
Liposucktion?
nose jobs?
Botox?
Ear lifts?



NO!





Why should hard working people who have already gotten 20% pay cuts have to fork out for someones operation just because they want to be happy....

We're not happy about having to pay for it
You REALLY want it?

THEN YOU ****ING WORK FOR IT LIKE ANY NORMAL PERSON!!

If they paid for breast enlargements,you wouldn't hear me complaining.

chin_grin

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No - This isn't an either/or situation

"If I don't get this operation, I will suffer from serious problems down the line with being deaf"

vs

"If I don't get this operation, I might commit suicide and suffer from serious mental health problems"

It really is. We're given two choices. That's a perfect either/or for me.

And when it comes to standards of living, I think increasing it for someone who's more worthy of it* rather than it being solely a vanity boost.

I'm not disregarding the fact that, yes those who don't think they belong to their own bodies will suffer some mental health issues. But that's where counselling comes in to play. Not a 'quick fix' operation.


* only for the argument for standard of living. This is not a homophobic EDIT or "transphobic" comment

Annasopra

chin_grin wrote: »

It really is. We're given two choices. That's a perfect either/or for me.

And when it comes to standards of living, I think increasing it for someone who's more worthy of it* rather than it being solely a vanity boost.

I'm not disregarding the fact that, yes those who don't think they belong to their own bodies will suffer some mental health issues. But that's where counselling comes in to play. Not a 'quick fix' operation.


* only for the argument for standard of living. This is not a homophobic comment

Agreed -it's not a homophobic comment - it's a transphobic comment to say that people need their operations for the sole purposes of a vanity boost and that they are not worthy of them

Effects

steve06 wrote: »

I watched a show about it on Discovery one day and it was weird... A guy got a sex change to become a girl, and then became a lesbian. A girl got a sex change to become a guy, and then became gay. Would it not have been easier to stay as they were as they were after the opposite sex anyway?

Gender and sexual orientation are two seperate things.

Wazdakka

In my opinion, a sex change operation is elective surgery.
No I don't think that the HSE should pay for them.

If it is a serious enough issue (mentally) for them and it can be deemed not elective but necessary by a recognised psychologist, then I think they should get into a position where they can argue it with a health insurance company.

I'm not opposed to these procedures, to each their own and all, but as far as I'm concerned it's an elective surgery not required to save or prolong life and I don't think the government should be in any way paying for them.

barleybooley

I can haz nose job?

chin_grin

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Agreed -it's not a homophobic comment - it's a transphobic comment to say that people need their operations for the sole purposes of a vanity boost and that they are not worthy of them

Well, then that was not my intent. But these operations are by choice, not by necessity. The operation (in essence) works on the psyche it doesn't do anything to biologically improve the situation that that person is in (other than cosmetic).

That was what I was trying to get at.

Ok I'm going to give you a black and white situation here.

1. Child needs operation to save life.
   
2. Man/woman needs operation to change sex.

I'm holding a gun to your head, choose.

Please note that I could've written the second option as follows:

Man/woman wants operation to change sex.

Annasopra

Wazdakka wrote: »

In my opinion, a sex change operation is elective surgery.
No I don't think that the HSE should pay for them.

If it is a serious enough issue (mentally) for them and it can be deemed not elective but necessary by a recognised psychologist, then I think they should get into a position where they can argue it with a health insurance company.

I'm not opposed to these procedures, to each their own and all, but as far as I'm concerned it's an elective surgery not required to save or prolong life and I don't think the government should be in any way paying for them.

Every single person who goes through SRS has to get diagnosed by a psychologist and it is always necessary rather than an elective - people don't just decide on the spur of the moment - oh yes I want a sex change

Annasopra

chin_grin wrote: »

Well, then that was not my intent. But these operations are by choice, not by necessity. The operation (in essence) works on the psyche it doesn't do anything to biologically improve the situation that that person is in (other than cosmetic).

That was what I was trying to get at.

Ok I'm going to give you a black and white situation here.

1. Child needs operation to save life.
   
2. Man/woman needs operation to change sex.

I'm holding a gun to your head, choose.

Please note that I could've written the second option as follows:

Man/woman wants operation to change sex.

Thats a false choice - my answer is that I would choose both

smash

Links234 wrote: »

because how you feel in your own body has nothing to do with who you're attracted to!

ibarelycare wrote: »

Getting a sex change is not related to sexuality at all.

Effects wrote: »

Gender and sexual orientation are two sererate things.

Yes I know this, but I think it's a bit odd. I'm a gay girl trapped in a guy's body/I'm a gay guy trapped in a girl's body. As in, they're attracted to the opposite sex and have the 'tools' needed to have sex with the opposite sex, so why change it? I know a lot of gay people and even some of them have said that's a bit strange because after the op, they'll still be after the same people, they can't have sex properly anyway and to go into a gay bar and say you used to be the opposite sex will turn off a lot of people.

TelePaul

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Thats a false choice - my answer is that I would choose both

You know how a choice works, right?

TelePaul

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Every single person who goes through SRS has to get diagnosed by a psychologist and it is always necessary rather than an elective - people don't just decide on the spur of the moment - oh yes I want a sex change

There are a great deal of things relating to physicality that can contribute to mental health difficulties - should the HSE fund each and every one? I'm curious as to where, in your opinion, do you draw the line?

Banned Account

Wazdakka wrote: »

I'm not opposed to these procedures ...

Are you offering to "go chick" Wazdakka? If so, give me a shout, I know someone we could meet up with;)

El Guapo!

NO! Absolutely not. And tbh theres not a single argument that can validate spending money, that is badly needed elsewhere, on a sex change. I dont care if the person cries themself to sleep every night about it. If its that bad then they can go to counselling about it rather than spending the tax-payers valuable money on an operation that is not a necessity. Or save up for the operation like anybody else who has to save for something they want.:mad:

tolosenc

South Park being the source of all of my knowledge, it is a cosmetic operation and thus, imo, should not be state funded.

Links234

steve06 wrote: »

Yes I know this, but I think it's a bit odd. I'm a gay girl trapped in a guy's body/I'm a gay guy trapped in a girl's body. As in, they're attracted to the opposite sex and have the 'tools' needed to have sex with the opposite sex, so why change it? I know a lot of gay people and even some of them have said that's a bit strange because after the op, they'll still be after the same people, they can't have sex properly anyway and to go into a gay bar and say you used to be the opposite sex will turn off a lot of people.

so you're saying that a lesbian couple don't have the "tools" need to have sex with each other?
you're being remarkably silly

chin_grin

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Thats a false choice - my answer is that I would choose both

Ok, I do see where you're coming from here. And I'm not purposefully trying to disagree or get a rise out of you as I respect your answer.

I'll leave it at this, what I'm saying is I cannot weight up these as being as important as each other........But, again that's just me. And I also would like to clarify that I'm not a transphobic as you mentioned! As I wouldn't expect anyone else to judge me, then who am I to judge?

dvpower

Dean09 wrote: »

NO! Absolutely not. And tbh theres not a single argument that can validate spending money, that is badly needed elsewhere, on a sex change. I dont care if the person cries themself to sleep every night about it. If its that bad then they can go to counselling about it rather than spending the tax-payers valuable money on an operation that is not a necessity. Or save up for the operation like anybody else who has to save for something they want.:mad:

I think councilling is already a pre requisite to getting the operation.

Effects

steve06 wrote: »

Yes I know this, but I think it's a bit odd. I'm a gay girl trapped in a guy's body/I'm a gay guy trapped in a girl's body. As in, they're attracted to the opposite sex and have the 'tools' needed to have sex with the opposite sex, so why change it? I know a lot of gay people and even some of them have said that's a bit strange because after the op, they'll still be after the same people, they can't have sex properly anyway and to go into a gay bar and say you used to be the opposite sex will turn off a lot of people.

You might think it's a bit odd. I just think you're a bit ignorant.

aDeener

how is this even a topic for debate?

Annasopra

chin_grin wrote: »

Ok, I do see where you're coming from here. And I'm not purposefully trying to disagree or get a rise out of you as I respect your answer.

I'll leave it at this, what I'm saying is I cannot weight up these as being as important as each other........But, again that's just me. And I also would like to clarify that I'm not a transphobic as you mentioned! As I wouldn't expect anyone else to judge me, then who am I to judge?

You're probably not transphobic but I did find the way in which you suggested one operation was more worthy and one person was more worthy of treatment distasteful - In my view it shouldn't come down to pitting people against each other and saying that trans people are less worthy than children of genuinely needed healthcare - They both need the healthcare so give it to them both - I have no problem if it's a question of resources looking to see if SRS can be achieved somehow cheaper or redirecting resources within the HSE so that patients get needed treatment

Wazdakka

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Every single person who goes through SRS has to get diagnosed by a psychologist and it is always necessary rather than an elective - people don't just decide on the spur of the moment - oh yes I want a sex change

Fair enough. I didn't know that.

Either way, I think that it should be an issue between the person and a health insurance company.
I don't think that the already overburdened / badly run, health system should be paying for these procedures.

Does the government pay for people who are self conscious about there hairline to get surgery?
Or people who think that the shape of their nose is affecting there confidence and that surgery would make them more happy and successful?

I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone of the future / current sexchanged persuasion by comparing it to those kind of procedures, but that's just how I (being massively uneducated on the nuances of the subject) see it.

Effects

aDeener wrote: »

how is this even a topic for debate?

Because this is an internet forum, that's what happens quite often. People debate different topics.