Tuam councillor calls for HSE to axe sex change operations

Lockstep

Link here

Call for HSE to axe sex-change ops as child denied aid
Conor McMorrow, Political Correspondent
Colm Keaveney: called for HSE review

The 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.

My own thoughts on the matter is that priorities are needed, I know next to nothing about transgender issues but it seems strange that so much can be spent on such operations when €1600 can be denied for a child (My own hearing was saved by the HSE when I was a baby, thanks to a timely operation)
Any thoughts on the matter?

P. Breathnach

Cuts in sex-change operations? Seems to be part of the procedure.

Axing in sex-change operations? Seem a bit brutal. Scalpels are better.

Laminations

Does he know all there is to know about the crying game?

Seriously though, similarly to you doctors saved my sight when I was a baby, that's an obvious priority but it must be very hard not being able to identify with ones own body and I imagine if we were in that situation it'd be a major priority to attempt to remedy that

Wolfe Tone

Personally I think that "sex change" operations are vital and very important procedures, just as important as any other operation. It would be horrifically unfair to cut funding for them. They are life changing and correcting procedures. There is a perception that these are just "cosmetic" type procedures but I disagree.

If funding was cut it would further marginalize these people. It would result in much suffering as they would not be able to afford it themselves. Why sort of message will it send out? These people are not worthy of equal treatment and access to health-care as everyone else?

mikemac

Wonder if An Bord Snip would have any comment on this spending

Anyway, the State doesn't even fund laser eye surgury which some argue is cosmetic but it's vital for some people.
Serving members of the defense forces for example.

Hazlittle

If you're going blind and get surgery thats a physical solution to a physical problem. Wanting to change your sex implies a mental problem.

sensibleken

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Personally I think that "sex change" operations are vital and very important procedures, just as important as any other operation. It would be horrifically unfair to cut funding for them. They are life changing and correcting procedures. There is a perception that these are just "cosmetic" type procedures but I disagree.

If funding was cut it would further marginalize these people. It would result in much suffering as they would not be able to afford it themselves. Why sort of message will it send out? These people are not worthy of equal treatment and access to health-care as everyone else?

I agree that they are very important operations that should be funded by the taxpayer. however, funding is something we don't have. If drawing up a list of priorities i would by sight saving operations above gender re-assignment.

unfortunetely fairness is a very subjective thing when the cupboards are bare.

BeardyGit

I very much doubt that the parents of the child concerned are unable to raise the €1600 required to pay for the procedure/implants themselves when it comes down to it. Each year there are thousands of children whos parents pay for all sorts of procedures and treatments themselves, even if the HSE should really cover it.

I know if I had a child who needed this procedure and the funding was refused by the HSE, I'd be out there doing what I needed to do to find it, not feeding a sheeplike junior politician with the means to have a pop at the HSE over providing funding to another individual for a procedure which to all intents and purposes could prove to be 'life saving' for that person.

That self serving politician deserves a slap for the clear discrimination he's displayed. He should be taking on the HSE and its failures as a whole, not playing the needs of one citizen against another.

Divide and conquer, eh? Looks like Labour aren't much different from any other political party if that's how they approach these matters.

BeardyGit

Hazlittle wrote: »

If you're going blind and get surgery thats a physical solution to a physical problem. Wanting to change your sex implies a mental problem.

And you're implying ignorance I'm afraid. Transgender identity is a super complex area and one that you can't just sum up by saying it's a 'mental problem'.

If a gender reassignment can help save a life, would you put it higher up the list of priorities than saving someones hearing? Or sight? Or limbs?

Think before you type.

Links234

Hazlittle wrote: »

Wanting to change your sex implies a mental problem.

Being transgender is not a mental issue.

sensibleken

Transsexual gene link identified
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous Steroids

Stole these links from a post in AH. To show how transsexuality is a physical issue

Lockstep

RoverCraft wrote: »

If a gender reassignment can help save a life, would you put it higher up the list of priorities than saving someones hearing? Or sight? Or limbs?

Think before you type.

This is going into extremely risky territory; what if I am so distraught by the thought of having a large nose, that I will commit suicide unless it is surgically downsized? Should the taxpayer stump up for this?
I know you'll claim that having a large nose is not the same as feeling trapped in the wrong body but it does open up the can of worms as to how much the HSE should accomodate someone who's suicidal.

RoverCraft wrote: »

I very much doubt that the parents of the child concerned are unable to raise the €1600 required to pay for the procedure/implants themselves when it comes down to it.

It doesn't surprise me that much. Times are hard and €1600 is a fair amount of money.

RoverCraft wrote: »

Each year there are thousands of children whos parents pay for all sorts of procedures and treatments themselves, even if the HSE should really cover it.

Yes, and these parents can afford to pay for it.

RoverCraft wrote: »

I know if I had a child who needed this procedure and the funding was refused by the HSE, I'd be out there doing what I needed to do to find it, not feeding a sheeplike junior politician with the means to have a pop at the HSE over providing funding to another individual for a procedure which to all intents and purposes could prove to be 'life saving' for that person.

Can't they be doing both?
The idea of a sex change being "life saving" enters difficult ground, as I have outlined above.

RoverCraft wrote: »

That self serving politician deserves a slap for the clear discrimination he's displayed. He should be taking on the HSE and its failures as a whole, not playing the needs of one citizen against another.

Unfortunately, the HSE resources are finite. Prioritising of healthcare is obviously needed.

Nodin

kickoutthejams wrote: »

This is going into extremely risky territory; what if I am so distraught by the thought of having a large nose, that I will commit suicide unless it is surgically downsized? Should the taxpayer stump up for this?
I know you'll claim that having a large nose is not the same as feeling trapped in the wrong body but it does open up the can of worms as to how much the HSE should accomodate someone who's suicidal.

As pointed out in post 11, there's a medical basis for this. Thus the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body is because essentially the brain is trapped in the wrong body - its not a psychological disorder, as was formerly thought.

Links234

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I know you'll claim that having a large nose is not the same as feeling trapped in the wrong body but it does open up the can of worms as to how much the HSE should accomodate someone who's suicidal.

pretending for one second that being transgender is a mental issue (which it isn't!), how much do you think the HSE spends on people with serious psychological issues? treatment for people who may be suicide risks, people with severe depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, or any number of other issues that can pose a risk of suicide? you know, staff for facilities to help young adults who are self harming and might be at risk of suicide?

IF being transgender was something psychological, why would it be any different to all the other psychological ailments that pose a risk of suicide, and that the HSE are already accommodating?

PS. it's not a mental issue.

BeardyGit

kickoutthejams wrote: »

This is going into extremely risky territory; what if I am so distraught by the thought of having a large nose, that I will commit suicide unless it is surgically downsized? Should the taxpayer stump up for this?
I know you'll claim that having a large nose is not the same as feeling trapped in the wrong body but it does open up the can of worms as to how much the HSE should accomodate someone who's suicidal.


It doesn't surprise me that much. Times are hard and €1600 is a fair amount of money.

Yes, and these parents can afford to pay for it.


Can't they be doing both?
The idea of a sex change being "life saving" enters difficult ground, as I have outlined above.


Unfortunately, the HSE resources are finite. Prioritising of healthcare is obviously needed.

I don't see for a minute how it's entering difficult ground. You've said that times are hard and €1600 is a lot of money. Sure it is. But that's no excuse. As a parent of a 7 year old kid, you'd find it by cutting back on other things. Don't go suggesting that maybe they've already cut back everything they can in support of your argument - it's weak enough as it stands. A credit union loan, help from family, hospital saturday fund....the list of possible sources goes on and on. And they'll find a way to pay for it, that's a fact. Don't try to hype this into something greater than it is.

Why are you suggesting that it's 'difficult ground' and 'extremely risky territory' to suggest that a transgender procedure could be life saving for someone who could potentially take their own life? The actual 'condition' is only treatable via a gender reassignment, but the very real mental illnesses that often present as a consequence of not having this operation could certainly amount the same sort of costs in therapy, hospitalisation etc over time.

No matter, in neither case do you or I have specific facts, so we're just throwing our own thoughts around for now. One thing's for certain though - Most folks who read this thread and our contributions are likely to sympathise with the child and his/her parents as opposed to those singled out for a discriminatory dig by this politician. And for that he should be singled out.

These things need to be treated on a case by case basis, always, but that's not how the media or the general population react when presented with things in the misleading and ill-informed opinion of a politician and his slack jawed media contacts.

Who's to say that the recipient of a 30k operation hasn't already been on the receiving end of 20 years worth of treatment for depression? Who's to say that the childs parents aren't some outraged and indignant couple who can easily afford to pay it, but sought it from the state just because they see it as an entitlement?

Who knows? But deciding that one deserves it more than the other isn't really the point. Prioritising where funds are spent isn't your job, and unless you're going to go get that job, you won't have the privelage. The HSE is flawed, that's for sure. But you have to put some trust in those with a greater perspective on things to decide if and when a patient will receive funding for a particular treatment.

Hazlittle

RoverCraft wrote: »

And you're implying ignorance I'm afraid. Transgender identity is a super complex area and one that you can't just sum up by saying it's a 'mental problem'.

If a gender reassignment can help save a life, would you put it higher up the list of priorities than saving someones hearing? Or sight? Or limbs?

Think before you type.

I'm against free healthcare anyway. Sick people die. Not my problem.

Links234 wrote: »

Being transgender is not a mental issue.

sensibleken wrote: »

Transsexual gene link identified
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous Steroids

Stole these links from a post in AH. To show how transsexuality is a physical issue

Thanks I'll read these to put time off writing my essay.

rovert

I already made my mind up about this when I just read "Tuam councillor calls for" :pac:

Links234

also, I'd like to know where this €30k figure is coming from

in the other thread, I said I wouldn't like to get the government to pay for my own operation, because I would have to get it done in the UK, and from accounts I've heard, the surgeons in the UK who do this are using very outdated methods, discard a lot of sensate material during the procedure, and the results are less satisfactory. as well as that I've heard about very poor aftercare. reading things from people on other transgender messageboards, some people are shocked that the UK surgeons are even allowed to practice, many people in the UK won't go to them for surgery.

my choice, for what I'm going to pay for myself, is to go to Dr. Christine McGinn in America.
everything I've heard about her has been fantastic, and I almost wouldn't want to be done by anyone else.
From her, my vagina would cost $17,500 or €13,464

another one I had considered was with Dr. Suporn in thailand, the price would be about €9,426

anyone know if the UK surgery actually costs €30,000? it seems ridiculous

Hazlittle

Read those links. Something wrong with brains their not their genitals. Its an unnecessary surgery. Dont care if its legal just dont like paying taxes.

Chuchoter

Links you must get so sick of being the TG representative for the whole of boards! There are so many stupid threads over in AH (well this one is more sensible) and you're always right there chopping up dumb arguments :D

sensibleken

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm against free healthcare anyway. Sick people die. Not my problem.

Aren't you pleasant

Hazlittle wrote: »

Read those links. Something wrong with brains their not their genitals. Its an unnecessary surgery. Dont care if its legal just dont like paying taxes.

Nooo, there is nothing wrong with their brains and thats where their personality lives. Its really quite simple

Lockstep

RoverCraft wrote: »

I don't see for a minute how it's entering difficult ground. You've said that times are hard and €1600 is a lot of money. Sure it is. But that's no excuse. As a parent of a 7 year old kid, you'd find it by cutting back on other things. Don't go suggesting that maybe they've already cut back everything they can in support of your argument - it's weak enough as it stands. A credit union loan, help from family, hospital saturday fund....the list of possible sources goes on and on. And they'll find a way to pay for it, that's a fact. Don't try to hype this into something greater than it is.

You're right. As everyone who needs €1600 has access to it.
Don't be so foolish. Times are extremely tough right now, for people across Ireland and if you honestly think that such an amount of money is obtainable by everyone then I'm baffled as to how someone can be this sheltered.

RoverCraft wrote: »

Why are you suggesting that it's 'difficult ground' and 'extremely risky territory' to suggest that a transgender procedure could be life saving for someone who could potentially take their own life? The actual 'condition' is only treatable via a gender reassignment, but the very real mental illnesses that often present as a consequence of not having this operation could certainly amount the same sort of costs in therapy, hospitalisation etc over time.

Because then it opens up the question as to what the government should pay for.
A €1600 operation to save a child's hearing is one thing.

Like it or not, resources are not infinite. Prioritising needs to take place. What you are suggesting basically amounts to a person feeling suicidal being entitled to any surgery they wish.
Where do you propose the line is drawn here?
Anyone can feel suicidal for any number of reasons; should the HSE pay for all of these thing?

RoverCraft wrote: »

I
No matter, in neither case do you or I have specific facts, so we're just throwing our own thoughts around for now. One thing's for certain though - Most folks who read this thread and our contributions are likely to sympathise with the child and his/her parents as opposed to those singled out for a discriminatory dig by this politician. And for that he should be singled out.

For questioning the money being spent on sex changes when saving a child's hearing is viewed as too expensive? I see no problem with this.

RoverCraft wrote: »

These things need to be treated on a case by case basis, always, but that's not how the media or the general population react when presented with things in the misleading and ill-informed opinion of a politician and his slack jawed media contacts.
Who's to say that the recipient of a 30k operation hasn't already been on the receiving end of 20 years worth of treatment for depression? Who's to say that the childs parents aren't some outraged and indignant couple who can easily afford to pay it, but sought it from the state just because they see it as an entitlement?

As you're doubtless aware, the funding of the HSE is limited. We don't have infinite money to throw around, especially in a recession when we are running up an extremely high deficit. Running case by case tests would could cost a lot of extra in paperwork and screening, broad strokes are needed in a universal healthcare system like Ireland.

RoverCraft wrote: »

Who knows? But deciding that one deserves it more than the other isn't really the point. Prioritising where funds are spent isn't your job, and unless you're going to go get that job, you won't have the privelage. The HSE is flawed, that's for sure. But you have to put some trust in those with a greater perspective on things to decide if and when a patient will receive funding for a particular treatment.

Ah right, forgive me for posting up on a politics debating forum. Clearly it's not my job to decide which needs priority and I should trust the powers that be.
I should obviously not worry about the almighty economic mess the current government has gotten us into. As it is not my job to decide these things and I should have trust in them to do the right thing.

Links234 wrote: »

pretending for one second that being transgender is a mental issue (which it isn't!), how much do you think the HSE spends on people with serious psychological issues? treatment for people who may be suicide risks, people with severe depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, or any number of other issues that can pose a risk of suicide? you know, staff for facilities to help young adults who are self harming and might be at risk of suicide?

IF being transgender was something psychological, why would it be any different to all the other psychological ailments that pose a risk of suicide, and that the HSE are already accommodating?

PS. it's not a mental issue.

Yes, and (to my knowledge) the HSE doesn't pay for surgery due to someone's personal issues. Does the HSE pay for liposuction for someone feeling depressed for their being morbidly obese (as an example)

metrovelvet

How does not having the procedure affect your health? Does it cause cancer or paralyze you? Blindness? Excema? Chron's?

CokaColumbo

I don't think the tax-payer should be expected to make large amounts of cash available so that people can mutilate their bodies in order to feel more in-tune with their own psychological identity; especially at a time when deaf children can't get sufficient care in public sector hospitals.

Saying that these folks deserve to have their "surgeries" publically funded because if they don't get them, they may become depressed and kill themselves is essentially blackmail.

Did you know that a separate psychological disorder exists whereby the "victim" honestly feels that he/she would live a more fulfilling life as an amputee? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder). Should we be compelled to pay for people to have their healthy limbs amputated? Absolutely not; its unethical and nobody should be forced to pay for that procedure.
Likewise, I don't think it is right for anybody to be forced to pay for a procedure which involves slicing a fully functioning penis from a man's torso.

If that dude wants to do that to himself, he can go right ahead but he should not expect me to foot the bill for such a messed up operation.

sensibleken

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I don't think the tax-payer should be expected to make large amounts of cash available so that people can mutilate their bodies in order to feel more in-tune with their own psychological identity; especially at a time when deaf children can't get sufficient care in public sector hospitals.

Saying that these folks deserve to have their "surgeries" publically funded because if they don't get them, they may become depressed and kill themselves is essentially blackmail.

Did you know that a separate psychological disorder exists whereby the "victim" honestly feels that he/she would live a more fulfilling life as an amputee? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder). Should we be compelled to pay for people to have their healthy limbs amputated? Absolutely not; its unethical and nobody should be forced to pay for that procedure.
Likewise, I don't think it is right for anybody to be forced to pay for a procedure which involves slicing a fully functioning penis from a man's torso.

If that dude wants to do that to himself, he can go right ahead but he should not expect me to foot the bill for such a messed up operation.

so is all research into depression blackmail if its publicly funded?

Also there are a lot of different disorders you cannot compare transexuality to what you cited anymore than you can homosexuality with schizophrenia. they are completely different things. transexuality research has shown that they are neurologicaly a different gender than whats between their legs.

If these have to be shelved for the time being while the country picks itself up then that may be an unfortunate neccesity. but the main problem with the HSE is that the organisation is a financial black hole. If it ran efficiently I would have no doubt that both would be possible

astrofool

Well, if there is an option between saving a deaf child's hearing, and changing a person's sex, then obviously the first operation should get the budget.

However, operations don't usually work like that, everything goes on a schedule, and the priority cases jump the queue, I doubt someone has ever changed sex in lieu of saving someone's sight.

I also think we're about 10 years early technologically speaking on the sex change front, we can pump people full of hormones, and cut and add bits in a very rough fashion, but we really need to be able to grow and replace internal organs to do it properly.

Victor

So, out of perhaps €100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion euros) spent on health over the last ten years, the HSE have spend about €1,000,000 (one million euros) on such operations? I think the suggested priorities for cuts are misguided.

Hazlittle wrote: »

If you're going blind and get surgery thats a physical solution to a physical problem. Wanting to change your sex implies a mental problem.

Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues* shouldn't receive care? Gender reassignment isn't done for kicks.

http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

Oh, here's an idea. the head of the HSE commented at the weekend that hospital services in Galway cost too much - staff working all night with very few patients. I see a solution.


* See other posts on this issue. Note that health insurers only cover substance abuse and not other mental health issues.

BeardyGit

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You're right. As everyone who needs €1600 has access to it.
Don't be so foolish. Times are extremely tough right now, for people across Ireland and if you honestly think that such an amount of money is obtainable by everyone then I'm baffled as to how someone can be this sheltered.


Because then it opens up the question as to what the government should pay for.
A €1600 operation to save a child's hearing is one thing.

Like it or not, resources are not infinite. Prioritising needs to take place. What you are suggesting basically amounts to a person feeling suicidal being entitled to any surgery they wish.
Where do you propose the line is drawn here?
Anyone can feel suicidal for any number of reasons; should the HSE pay for all of these thing?


For questioning the money being spent on sex changes when saving a child's hearing is viewed as too expensive? I see no problem with this.


As you're doubtless aware, the funding of the HSE is limited. We don't have infinite money to throw around, especially in a recession when we are running up an extremely high deficit. Running case by case tests would could cost a lot of extra in paperwork and screening, broad strokes are needed in a universal healthcare system like Ireland.

Ah right, forgive me for posting up on a politics debating forum. Clearly it's not my job to decide which needs priority and I should trust the powers that be.
I should obviously not worry about the almighty economic mess the current government has gotten us into. As it is not my job to decide these things and I should have trust in them to do the right thing.




Yes, and (to my knowledge) the HSE doesn't pay for surgery due to someone's personal issues. Does the HSE pay for liposuction for someone feeling depressed for their being morbidly obese (as an example)

Blah blah blah blah blah. You're making a whole load of leaps and bounds here bucko, jumping from liposuction for morbidly obese (when that's nowhere near the right type of surgical/medical treatment - ignorant much?) to asserting that I'm sheltered and foolish for suggesting a parent would fine a way to lay their hands on €1600 for their childs health....

Sensationalist ****e obviously hits the mark with you, eh? And the only practical point of reference you can bring to things is that you had an operation that saved your hearing when you were a baby. Well, good for you.

Well sunshine, let me tell you something. A parent would find the money. If the state hadn't paid out for your operation, you can bet your arse your folks would have sold their house and cycled to work for the next 20 years to pay for it. That's how it works. End of story. The rest of your post....well, you're so far off the mark now that I couldn't be arsed responding. Enjoy your bliss.

SassyGirl_1

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I don't think the tax-payer should be expected to make large amounts of cash available so that people can mutilate their bodies in order to feel more in-tune with their own psychological identity; especially at a time when deaf children can't get sufficient care in public sector hospitals.

The child isn't deaf, it has a 35% hearing loss.

Likewise, I don't think it is right for anybody to be forced to pay for a procedure which involves slicing a fully functioning penis from a man's torso.

Please, do a little research before repeating the same tired mis-conceptions about what is involved in changing ones gender.

If that dude wants to do that to himself, he can go right ahead but he should not expect me to foot the bill for such a messed up operation.

I guess you'd have the same problem with the HSE paying for operations for people to go private, who are on the public waiting list - http://www.ntpf.ie/home/

22 operations in 10 years roughly works out at 66k (at the low end) a year - Out of a budget of how much? 14 Billion this year alone.

Any operations to change gender are carried out of state (because such a service is not provided here) under the National Treatment Purchase Fund. As far as I know there is an EU directive if a operation is not available in this country, people have the option of travelling to another EU country to avail of that operation.

If as the bandwagon has stated the HSE should no longer fund such operations, in order to treat everyone the same, they should also, no longer fund any operation with is not provided for here. They should also no longer fund treatment for cancer suffers who smoke, same applies for diabetes, stroke victims and so on - in cases where all those illnesses are self-inflicted - why should anyones taxes pay for their treatment?

Lockstep

RoverCraft wrote: »

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Damn, your eloquence has really caught me out here.

RoverCraft wrote: »

You're making a whole load of leaps and bounds here bucko, jumping from liposuction for morbidly obese (when that's nowhere near the right type of surgical/medical treatment - ignorant much?)

But if they're going to commit suicide over it and lipsuction will quickly get rid of the fat, then surely it's one of the things the HSE should do. Seeing as it is a life or death decision.
"Bucko".

RoverCraft wrote: »

to asserting that I'm sheltered and foolish for suggesting a parent would fine a way to lay their hands on €1600 for their childs health....

Most would do their level best, but you're living in lala land if you honestly think that every parent in Ireland can do this.
Newsflash; there's a recession. And €1600 is a no small amount of money.

RoverCraft wrote: »

Sensationalist ****e obviously hits the mark with you, eh? And the only practical point of reference you can bring to things is that you had an operation that saved your hearing when you were a baby. Well, good for you.

And what is your practical point of reference? But of course, you think that those in authority know best and that the only people who should question priorities are those who have to make them.

RoverCraft wrote: »

Well sunshine, let me tell you something. A parent would find the money. If the state hadn't paid out for your operation, you can bet your arse your folks would have sold their house and cycled to work for the next 20 years to pay for it. That's how it works. End of story. The rest of your post....well, you're so far off the mark now that I couldn't be arsed responding. Enjoy your bliss.

My parents rented a house when I was a wee baby (they still do) and weren't earning much (my mother was unemployed at the time) "sunshine".
The fact you automatically assume that my parents owned a house in 80s Ireland (combined with your assumption that raising €1600 is something any parent can do) really reinforces my thoughts that you're fairly sheltered from how lean things are in Ireland right now.

Links234

Victor wrote: »

the HSE have spend about €1,000,000 (one million euros) on such operations?

I've been scratching my head over this for a while now, and €30,000 for male-to-female surgery doesn't make any sense to me at all, so I'm now guessing that what the HSE is paying for is the cheapest, lowest bidder price procedure

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67130114&postcount=228

so maybe it's not €30,000 per procedure, but that's the TOTAL amount payed for male-to-female surgeries over the last 10 years.
so that's €93,000 for 22 patients over the last 10 years, nothing close to one million

nowhere in the article does it say that it's €30,000 EACH, it just says that that much was spent.

ORLY?

This isn't about the good of society or the best way to divide health funds.

This is about a politician trying to make the HSE look bad and thereby the government, by claiming the needs of those for which people often have most sympathy (kids) are given less attention than the needs of those for whom he knows sympathy is going to be much much less.

That's his primary motivation.

Interesting how he chose the transexuals to highlight. It's quite sickening how insincere this move is. Makes me sick.

BeardyGit

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Damn, your eloquence has really caught me out here.


But if they're going to commit suicide over it and lipsuction will quickly get rid of the fat, then surely it's one of the things the HSE should do. Seeing as it is a life or death decision.
"Bucko".


Most would do their level best, but you're living in lala land if you honestly think that every parent in Ireland can do this.
Newsflash; there's a recession. And €1600 is a no small amount of money.


And what is your practical point of reference? But of course, you think that those in authority know best and that the only people who should question priorities are those who have to make them.


My parents rented a house when I was a wee baby (they still do) and weren't earning much (my mother was unemployed at the time) "sunshine".
The fact you automatically assume that my parents owned a house in 80s Ireland (combined with your assumption that raising €1600 is something any parent can do) really reinforces my thoughts that you're fairly sheltered from how lean things are in Ireland right now.

What's the point of reference? Well, since you asked... When my younger brother was 3 years old, back in 1980, my folks had to take him to the UK for pioneering open heart surgery. They had to pay for EVERYTHING. There were no supports from the state. You either got the care in an Irish hospital, or you headed overseas at your own expense. At the time it was a young single income family, supporting two kids and an elderly grandparent, in a recession, in a damp old house with no central heating or insulation - former council houses. I had asthma to throw into the mix. Don't know if you remember the smog over Dublin, but I'll never forget it. My Da cycled to work 12 miles each way, come rain hail or shine because he couldn't spare the money for the busfare - If he'd spent it, it would have come out of the money he had to save for the trip to the UK. I wore my older cousins hand me downs with the exception of getting good shoes from Arnotts/Clarks in Stillorgan, as my mam wanted to look after our feet for us while we grew up - Priorities, you see. My mam made curtains and cushion covers in between nursing my very sick little brother, all to help make ends meet and put enough money aside to pay what needed to be paid. The medicine alone for my brother cost 40% of what my Da earned each week, and there was no cap on what you paid out. He paid more than 60 pence in the pound tax on overtime, and had to do it anyway, because that's what he needed to do for his family. We had a great childhood but my parents suffered terribly to provide for us.

To personalise this a little more, the same brother ended up wearing hearing aids and the thickest glasses I ever saw a little lad wear..... Bad luck comes in threes, eh? Much time spent in the eye and ear on Adelaide road, and more time and money spent over in the hearing aid centre and opticians as we grew.

All the while with my wonderful father cycling his bike and honest as the day is long, missing not one day off work sick in 20 years.

The point I make is that as our parents, they did what they had to in order to provide for us when it came to the important stuff. They prioritised. They didn't sweat the little stuff and just found a way to make it happen.

Now I don't particularly care for your take on things, nor do I expect you to care for mine. Simple fact is that I'm not just harping on about it - I've lived it and my experiences are there for me to draw from. But I think for you to suggest that a parent would actually allow that money to stand in the way is just foolish to be honest.

Doubtless things are awfully tough on a lot of folks right now, but truth be told, where there's a will there's a way. And with all due respect, I don't think you do the determination of the average parent much by trying to make excuses for some folks failure to deliver for their kids.

Qualitymark

The trouble with sex change operations is that they don't change your sex.

A man with his genitals cut off and an artificial vagina surgically made, and with hormonal treatment for the rest of his life, is not a woman. A woman with her breasts cut off and an artificial penis, and hormones for the rest of her life is not a man.

Lockstep

RoverCraft wrote: »

What's the point of reference? [...] We had a great childhood but my parents suffered terribly to provide for us.

Sounds fairly similar to my own childhood then (except we had an extra kid and no grandparent) I also didn't have asthma.

RoverCraft wrote: »

The point I make is that as our parents, they did what they had to in order to provide for us when it came to the important stuff. They prioritised. They didn't sweat the little stuff and just found a way to make it happen.

Yes, parents do. Of course they will do their best for their kids. However, this is not something that can be taken for granted. Parents make tremendous sacrificies but €1600 is not a small amount of money. To assume that parents will somehow come up with the cash is extremely unfair.

RoverCraft wrote: »

Now I don't particularly care for your take on things, nor do I expect you to care for mine. Simple fact is that I'm not just harping on about it - I've lived it and my experiences are there for me to draw from. But I think for you to suggest that a parent would actually allow that money to stand in the way is just foolish to be honest.

Doubtless things are awfully tough on a lot of folks right now, but truth be told, where there's a will there's a way. And with all due respect, I don't think you do the determination of the average parent much by trying to make excuses for some folks failure to deliver for their kids.

And I think you are making terrible assumptions that merely because parents will make sacrifices for their kids, that they will somehow be able to come up with such an amount of money.
Merely because your parents managed to take the necessary pain does not mean every family will be able to.

Hazlittle

Victor wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues* shouldn't receive care? Gender reassignment isn't done for kicks.

Not ware that there is a surgery for depression. Women that get breast implants claim they need them. Same thing to me.

Qualitymark wrote: »

The trouble with sex change operations is that they don't change your sex.

A man with his genitals cut off and an artificial vagina surgically made, and with hormonal treatment for the rest of his life, is not a woman. A woman with her breasts cut off and an artificial penis, and hormones for the rest of her life is not a man.

Henc eits a mental problem.

Links234

Hazlittle wrote: »

Henc eits a mental problem.

It is not a mental problem.

CokaColumbo

SassyGirl_1 wrote: »

22 operations in 10 years roughly works out at 66k (at the low end) a year - Out of a budget of how much? 14 Billion this year alone.

It doesn't matter how much it costs in relation to the over-all budget. It is still a lot of money which could be used to alleviate the poor conditions experienced by people who actually have life threatening health-care needs.

SassyGirl_1 wrote: »

If as the bandwagon has stated the HSE should no longer fund such operations, in order to treat everyone the same, they should also, no longer fund any operation with is not provided for here. They should also no longer fund treatment for cancer suffers who smoke, same applies for diabetes, stroke victims and so on - in cases where all those illnesses are self-inflicted - why should anyones taxes pay for their treatment?

Well, I actually do disagree with having a mass public-sector healthcare system because the private sector and free markets can do a far superior job of providing health care to the masses than government run schemes currently do. But even if I did believe in the public option, I would (just like any other rational human being) see a clear distinction between treating a cancer sufferer and somebody who wants to artificially alter their gender for emotional reasons.

Cancer patients will undoubtedly die if they don't receive treatment from a doctor. Whatever about their past actions contributing to their ill health, they did not intentionally harm themselves.
A sex change operation is, for all intents and purposes, a cosmetic procedure (and a pretty nasty one at that), comparable to lipo-suction or a face-lift; or even the act of wilfully amputating healthy limbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder). It is unnecessary, perhaps immoral, and nobody should be compelled to pay for somebody to have such a procedure.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a cancer victim, or any legitimate victim, should receive priority, in the public system, over those who want to alter their appearance/mutilate their bodies, simply to feel more emotionally comfortable with themselves.

SassyGirl_1

Hazlittle wrote: »

Not ware that there is a surgery for depression. Women that get breast implants claim they need them. Same thing to me.
Henc eits a mental problem.

So, any woman who's had a mastectomy due to cancer shouldn't have reconstructive surgery because feeling "not normal" or incomplete and the depression they feel from that is a "mental problem" - they should just get over it, right?

Nodin

Hazlittle wrote: »

Henc eits a mental problem.

So - without getting into whether it is or it isn't - are you saying mental problems are of a lesser order than physical problems and thus not a priority......?

SassyGirl_1

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It doesn't matter how much it costs in relation to the over-all budget. It is still a lot of money which could be used to alleviate the poor conditions experienced by people who actually have life threatening health-care needs.

In relation to the over-all budget, it isn't a lot of money.

Cancer patients will undoubtedly die if they don't receive treatment from a doctor. Whatever about their past actions contributing to their ill health, they did not intentionally harm themselves.

People who smoke, it's clearly written on the box: Smoking kills, You will get cancer, you will die. They are intentionally harming themselves, are they not? Shouldn't they be told "Sorry, no help for you here, you did it yourself, off you go and die?"

You either treat everyone the same and provide them with the healthcare assistance they need or you don't.

You don't pick and choose who to treat or not to treat based on your own pre-defined assumptions/abhorrence /lack of understanding as to the cause and effect of another individual's illness be it a mental or physical one, or a combination of both.

Red Alert

People are dying (like CF patients, cancer patients) because money they desperately need for life-saving treatments that any other developed country would have as a matter of course isn't available. I'm afraid they're a higher priority than gender change operations, and we need to put political correctness aside. One is a life and death issue, the other is not.

Links234

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It doesn't matter how much it costs in relation to the over-all budget. It is still a lot of money which could be used to alleviate the poor conditions experienced by people who actually have life threatening health-care needs.

It's not a lot of money though, it's next to nothing at all
look at my posts #18 and #31

30k for one MtF surgery makes no sense to me at all, and they don't say in that article that it was that price for EACH surgery, just that 30k was payed. so I'm guessing that in total, the whole amount that was payed towards these surgeries for all 22 people over 10 years, was a total of €93,000 which is absolutely tiny

that's less than 100k spread out over a whole decade, that's less than what the government payed for a single bus stop for crying out loud! http://www.independent.ie/national-news/this-bus-stop-cost-euro170000-to-build-politicians-want-to-know-how-such-a-bill-can-be-justified-2272431.html

so it is NOT a lot of money that could be used to alleviate poor conditions elsewhere, it's an absolutely tiny, insignificant amount not worth making a fuss over like anyone is doing here. the only reason anyone has made a fuss was because of some councilor that wanted to get his name in the papers so he attacks a small and vulnerable group with cries of "won't someone please think of the children"

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Cancer patients will undoubtedly die if they don't receive treatment from a doctor. Whatever about their past actions contributing to their ill health, they did not intentionally harm themselves.
A sex change operation is, for all intents and purposes, a cosmetic procedure (and a pretty nasty one at that), comparable to lipo-suction or a face-lift; or even the act of wilfully amputating healthy limbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder). It is unnecessary, perhaps immoral, and nobody should be compelled to pay for somebody to have such a procedure.

BIID is a completely totally different thing, and the only reason anyone ever compares it to being transgender is on a superficial level, and to make the scaremonger "amputation" comparison. you know, medical professions don't amputated people's limbs to help them. they also don't give liposuction to anorexics. but they do agree that transition is the best thing for transgender patients, and that can sometimes include genital reassignment surgery as a necessary part of that. that's because it's a completely different thing and not comparable at all!

and no, it's not mutilation or is it nasty at all, and I don't see why it is immoral at all, it's something that can greatly improve someone's quality of life. it's not cosmetic either, this is not a cosmetic issue or a body image issue, it's something that goes far, far deeper than any of that.

Also, don't get the idea that just because you see that this is a genuine medical need, doesn't mean you have to agree that it should be payed for by the HSE. I would think that it should, but you don't need to agree with me to understand that transgender people are not mentally ill like so many people are saying.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a cancer victim, or any legitimate victim, should receive priority, in the public system, over those who want to alter their appearance/mutilate their bodies, simply to feel more emotionally comfortable with themselves.

NOBODY is saying that someone's genital reassignment should take priority over those cases, nobody at all!

sensibleken

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Cancer patients will undoubtedly die if they don't receive treatment from a doctor. Whatever about their past actions contributing to their ill health, they did not intentionally harm themselves.
A sex change operation is, for all intents and purposes, a cosmetic procedure (and a pretty nasty one at that), comparable to lipo-suction or a face-lift; or even the act of wilfully amputating healthy limbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder). It is unnecessary, perhaps immoral, and nobody should be compelled to pay for somebody to have such a procedure.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a cancer victim, or any legitimate victim, should receive priority, in the public system, over those who want to alter their appearance/mutilate their bodies, simply to feel more emotionally comfortable with themselves.

again. you cannot compare people wanting to be amputees to transexuality. they are not the same and they are not related. the first is a recognised disorder and the second shows neurological and biological dissonance, ie the brain is female but the body is male (in the case of m-f). Brain surgery to alter the neuological make-up is neither possible nor ethical, and would be a damn site more expensive. Basically this is corrective surgery.

This is not the same as a face lift, tummy tuck or buying some new shoes to make yourself feel better.

Although it is neccesary, I nor others are saying it should take prioirty over terminal illnesses. nor does it in fact

Links234

sensibleken wrote: »

Basically this is corrective surgery.

that is exactly what it is, thank you

sensibleken wrote: »

Although it is neccesary, I nor others are saying it should take prioirty over terminal illnesses. nor does it in fact

and thank you for speaking sensibly about this.

Apogee

This would be the same Colm Keaveney who pulled in €36,476 in 2006 and €39,643 in 2007 alone in earnings, allowances and expenses. Enough to fund 47 hearing-aid implants.

Thankfully, his concern for the likkel children wasn't so overpowering that it caused him to remove his snout from the trough for too long.

Wolfe Tone

Apogee wrote: »

This would be the same Colm Keaveney who pulled in €36,476 in 2006 and €39,643 in 2007 alone in earnings, allowances and expenses. Enough to fund 47 hearing-aid implants.

Thankfully, his concern for the likkel children wasn't so overpowering that it caused him to remove his snout from the trough for too long.

Thats rubbish tbh.


How many hearing aids did you buy with your income?

Apogee

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats rubbish tbh.


How many hearing aids did you buy with your income?

I'm not the one sitting in judgement of others deciding who and who should not receive medical care. I'm happy to leave that to those qualified to do so on the basis of medical need rather than an attempt by a failed TD to grab some cheap publicity.

A councillor is a part time job. Their salary is around €17,000. All the rest is made up of "expenses".

And even then, he has claimed between €9000 and €11000 more than a Fianna Fáiler in both years.

Colm Keaveney wrote:

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.

Halving the number of county councillors and abolishing town councils would be a good start.

Wolfe Tone

A councillor is a part time job. Their salary is around €17,000. All the rest is made up of "expenses".

And even then, he has claimed between €9000 and €11000 more than a Fianna Fáiler in both years.

Ha, did not know that.

Fair play, I get your point.

Nodin

Apogee wrote: »

And even then, he has claimed between €9000 and €11000 more than a Fianna Fáiler in both years.

This, and playing to the ignorami? Truly a seasoned operater.

shoegirl

The costs of non treatment are usually far higher than treatment. 60k per patient is rather small compared to an awful lot of common ongoing treatments. Those who don't get it are quite likely to end up with severe mental health problems, are very vulnerable to a range of social problems etc.

Giving them relief is better if it means they can then get on with their life.