Fine Gael's Brian Walsh attacks transgender people, surgeries shouldn't be funded!

Links234

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0914/1224304082329.html

NEW FIGURES from the Health Service Executive show 14 people were approved to travel abroad for gender reassignment surgery over a five-year period.
The surgery is not available in Ireland, but under the E112 scheme it can be arranged abroad and funded by the executive.
Gender reassignment surgery is part of a treatment for gender identity disorder and involves the reconstruction of genitalia to resemble that of the opposite sex.
The E112 scheme, or Treatment Abroad Scheme, provides a fund for treatments not currently available in Ireland which have been proven to be medically necessary.
They can be carried out in any EU country or in Switzerland.
Figures from the executive show 14 patients travelled outside the State for gender reassignment surgery from 2005 to 2010. Most of the operations were carried out in the UK, and none of the applications for treatment under the scheme were rejected.
Female-to-male transgender operations can cost up to €60,000, excluding travel expenses and post-operative therapy costs. Male-to-female procedures cost about €30,000.
Fine Gael deputy for Galway West Brian Walsh called on the executive to stop funding the operations.
He said private healthcare insurers do not cover sex-change operations on the basis the procedures are not considered to be medically necessary.
“There is a body of opinion within the medical profession that considers the surgery to be entirely inappropriate for the treatment of gender identity disorder,” he said.
Patients in “overstretched emergency departments” would be outraged to discover the executive had been paying for people to undergo sex-change operations abroad while it cannot provide a hospital bed for those who need it most at home, he said.
Mr Walsh said he was aware of patients with “very serious conditions” who had been denied funding for treatment abroad under the E112 scheme. “Yet the HSE are financing what many clinicians consider to be essentially cosmetic procedures,” he said.
“If, in fact, the surgery is within the definition of what is medically necessary, the question must be asked why the procedures are not provided within the State at present?”
In a statement, the executive said before a patient travels abroad medical evidence must be provided to it by the referring hospital consultant.
The consultant must recommend the patient be treated in another EU country, and certify the treatment is medically necessary and a proven form of medical treatment.
The treatment must also take place in a recognised hospital or other institution.
The executive said the total cost of the procedures to the State was not available as the information was “commercially sensitive”.

I'm ****ing fuming :mad:

MagicMarker

How does surgery in general work in this country? If someone has major surgery do they have to pay for it?

jaffacakesyum

MagicMarker wrote: »

How does surgery in general work in this country? If someone has major surgery do they have to pay for it?

Depends on their insurance as far as I know.

To be honest, I would like to see gender reassignment surgery being covered by private insurance, so that if it's not being paid by the state at least those who have private insurance can still get the surgery.

wolfpawnat

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Depends on their insurance as far as I know.

To be honest, I would like to see gender reassignment surgery being covered by private insurance, so that if it's not being paid by the state at least those who have private insurance can still get the surgery.

Is elective surgery covered under health insurance and surely they would cost a holy fortune.

Plus I know that all "pre-existing conditions" are not covered in policies and isn't getting okay for that surgery something that takes years to get cleared by all the right people?

MagicMarker

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Depends on their insurance as far as I know.

But for those with no insurance?

Meesared

Does this guy have a Facebook page like most politicians seem to these days?

Meesared

It should be available to everyone regardless of their income, not everyone can afford insurance. The current system works for a country our size, like only 14 people a year? Its not that much

Asry

There is this part - “There is a body of opinion within the medical profession that considers the surgery to be entirely inappropriate for the treatment of gender identity disorder,” he said.

I mean, is that true? I know that in psychiatric care there is a large divide between opinions of what is right and what is wrong as regards treatment practice.

I know that things like cancer treatment surgeries are free because my dad had one without insurance when he had prostate cancer.

Is sexual reassignment operation necessary the way having an operation to stop you dying would be seen as being?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. But then I've had multiple operations on my ears and I don't think they were stop me from dying, just to stop me going completely deaf. As for insurance or no insurance for those, I don't know. They were done in different countries and I sure as s*** didn't need government approval to get them.

Would the big one (as I refer to that particular operation in my head, because it's such a big thing and life-changing) be the same as that? It's not like those operations would stop you dying but they would dramatically help you keep living.

If you see what I mean?

[edit - if I said something offensive, it was really, really unintentional and I'm sorry. I don't really know the right terms and things and sometimes say things wrong anyway]

Links234

Asry wrote: »

There is this part - “There is a body of opinion within the medical profession that considers the surgery to be entirely inappropriate for the treatment of gender identity disorder,” he said.

I mean, is that true?

No, this is NOT true.

To quote something I posted in another thread,

This is one study that's been referred to in the UK, I'll just quote the relevant bits, look under the chapter "The Efficacy of surgical techniques":

A comprehensive review of post-surgical follow-up studies on transsexuals, spanning a period of thirty years, concluded, “In over 80 qualitatively different case studies and reviews from 12 countries, it has been demonstrated during the last 30 years that the treatment that includes the whole process of gender reassignment is effective.” 31

Later studies have provided further evidence in support of this conclusion. Rates of regret are consistently low: one study32 calculated a regret rate of 3.8%, and found that regrets were commonly associated with poor surgical results rather than with any desire to de-transition. Another study33 found that 98% of patients expressed no regrets post-operatively. In addition, 91.6% were satisfied with their overall appearance; the other 8.4% were neutral. In a group that had previously suffered from extreme gender dysphoria, it might be considered quite remarkable that, following surgery, not one patient’s physical appearance had given cause for personal dissatisfaction.

Similar results were obtained in a study34 that observed a satisfaction rate of over 90%: “Male-to-female surgery can achieve excellent cosmetic and functional results... None of the present patients claimed to regret their
decision to undergo gender-transforming surgery.” Here again, as in other studies35, any dissatisfaction was generally associated with poor surgical results, many of which could easily be corrected through secondary surgery. Furthermore, as the quality of surgical procedures improves, it can be expected that rates of dissatisfaction should decrease over time – certainly, the most recently published study36 showed an especially high rate of satisfaction at 98%.

This is the treatment for transgender individuals because it is very effective.

There is no "body of opinion" blah blah blah, this is the treatment, and slandering it as "cosmetic" is flat-out bull****.

IngazZagni

Meesared wrote: »

It should be available to everyone regardless of their income, not everyone can afford insurance. The current system works for a country our size, like only 14 people a year? Its not that much

If we were to take your attitude on finances for everything, we would be in a bigger economic mess than we already are. It doesn't matter how many or little people opt for procedures like this, the bottom line is that this is non essential surgery and it should not be covered by the tax payer in any way. There are hundreds of patients with legitimate health problems on trolleys in hospital corridors around the Country and Mr Walsh is absolutely right in saying how people would be angry to find out non essential surgeries were being performed with tax payer money when legitimate essential surgeries are delayed because of a lack of resources due to financing.

Links234

Meesared wrote: »

It should be available to everyone regardless of their income, not everyone can afford insurance. The current system works for a country our size, like only 14 people a year? Its not that much

it's not even 14 people a year, it's 14 people over 5 years!

IngazZagni wrote: »

If we were to take your attitude on finances for everything, we would be in a bigger economic mess than we already are. It doesn't matter how many or little people opt for procedures like this, the bottom line is that this is non essential surgery and it should not be covered by the tax payer in any way. There are hundreds of patients with legitimate health problems on trolleys in hospital corridors around the Country and Mr Walsh is absolutely right in saying how people would be angry to find out non essential surgeries were being performed with tax payer money when legitimate essential surgeries are delayed because of a lack of resources due to financing.

This is not non-essential surgery, and for citizens of an EU country, not having access to these surgeries (I think) would be a violation of their human rights.

skregs

Don't be hating just because he's right.

Links234

skregs wrote: »

Don't be hating just because he's right.

I'm hating because he's a bigot picking on an extremely small minority that don't even have much in the way of rights in this country, and what he's talking about is effectively violating our human rights. :mad:

wolfpawnat

Links234 wrote: »

This is not non-essential surgery, and for citizens of an EU country, not having access to these surgeries (I think) would be a violation of their human rights.

There was a piece in the news 2 nights ago stating that people are having to wait several months for colonic biopsies, surely these would rate higher than what is seen by the larger part of society as non-essential surgery. I am not brushing it under the rug and ignoring the issues of people who are stuck in the wrong bodies, but merely saying that in the grand scheme of things, it is more an infringement of a persons human rights to not provide them with essential life saving treatment.

wolfpawnat

Links234 wrote: »

what he's talking about is effectively violating our human rights. :mad:

Can I ask where is it in the charter of human rights that states that a person has to be given gender altering surgery funded by their government? Not trying to demean a sector of society, but I would not think that you are placing a want as a need.

It is not fair that people who wish to have these surgeries have to leave Ireland, but there are others who argue this about their cases in other medical related topics.

The HSE is far above budget and if a ward was closed in Crumlin to facilitate 14 every 5 years, there would for the most part, be public out roar.

Asry

I agree with wolfpawnat I'm afraid. I'm not saying that it's not a legitimate health concern as was suggested earlier, I know that it's appalling, but like a friend of mine on the continent said that us not having abortion is a violation of our human rights and....it's not, either.

I mean, we're talking about a form of augmentation. If we follow the argument then I should be allowed a boobjob. I could only get one courtesy of the tax payer if my exquisite breasts were damaging my back or something.

Links234

wolfpawnat wrote: »

There was a piece in the news 2 nights ago stating that people are having to wait several months for colonic biopsies, surely these would rate higher than what is seen by the larger part of society as non-essential surgery. I am not brushing it under the rug and ignoring the issues of people who are stuck in the wrong bodies, but merely saying that in the grand scheme of things, it is more an infringement of a persons human rights to not provide them with essential life saving treatment.

As far as I know, surgeries provided for transgender people under the treatment abroad scheme are funded by the EU in part, so even if the wildly exaggerated figures for the cost of these surgeries were true, the Irish medical system only pays a part of that cost.

That's a complete red herring about the colonic biopsies. having people seek medically necessary treatment abroad has NOTHING to do with an overworked system... did the show actually point to a causation for the waiting times, and were transgender people that cause? No! no more than paying for treatment for any number of non-life threatening ailments is the cause for a wait of several months for a colonic biopsy.

hey, why stop at the medical needs of trans people? why not stop treating people with broken bones? it's absurd.

emzolita

MagicMarker wrote: »

How does surgery in general work in this country? If someone has major surgery do they have to pay for it?

I had major brain surgery and have no insurance. I didn't have to pay, but I was on a waiting list for ages, which then got moved closer cause the problem became more dangerous.
After the surgery I had to get plates and screws taken out of my skull but was on a waiting list for 5 years, cause it wasnt dangerous. (I ended up getting done in a private hosp on the National treatment Purchase Fund) cause I was waiting so long.


This is an outrage though, are they gonna start saying that anorexics and people with depression are not going to be medicated because it's not a physical illness, disgusting!

Shakti

wolfpawnat wrote: »

There was a piece in the news 2 nights ago stating that people are having to wait several months for colonic biopsies, surely these would rate higher than what is seen by the larger part of society as non-essential surgery. I am not brushing it under the rug and ignoring the issues of people who are stuck in the wrong bodies, but merely saying that in the grand scheme of things, it is more an infringement of a persons human rights to not provide them with essential life saving treatment.

how long do you think transgender patients wait for surgery?

Shakti

skregs wrote: »

Don't be hating just because he's right.

troll

Links234

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Can I ask where is it in the charter of human rights that states that a person has to be given gender altering surgery funded by their government? Not trying to demean a sector of society, but I would not think that you are placing a want as a need.

It is not fair that people who wish to have these surgeries have to leave Ireland, but there are others who argue this about their cases in other medical related topics.

The HSE is far above budget and if a ward was closed in Crumlin to facilitate 14 every 5 years, there would for the most part, be public out roar.

European Convention on Human Rights Article 13, Right to an effective remedy.

my post here on the subject shows that this IS the effective treatment.

rainbow kirby

skregs wrote: »

Don't be hating just because he's right.

Please read the charter before posting again.

Links234

Asry wrote: »

If we follow the argument then I should be allowed a boobjob.

:rolleyes:

not even gnna... :mad:

wolfpawnat

Links234 wrote: »

As far as I know, surgeries provided for transgender people under the treatment abroad scheme are funded by the EU in part, so even if the wildly exaggerated figures for the cost of these surgeries were true, the Irish medical system only pays a part of that cost.

That's a complete red herring about the colonic biopsies. having people seek medically necessary treatment abroad has NOTHING to do with an overworked system... did the show actually point to a causation for the waiting times, and were transgender people that cause? No! no more than paying for treatment for any number of non-life threatening ailments is the cause for a wait of several months for a colonic biopsy.

hey, why stop at the medical needs of trans people? why not stop treating people with broken bones? it's absurd.

But we are not stopping the needs of trans people if they need an x-ray, they get an x-ray. Colon biopsies are are not being stopped by trans gender members of society society and no where in ANY of my posts have I EVER stated that!!!!:mad: I merely gave it as an example as I was watching it on the news earlier this week.

My posts state that the hospitals are backed up with people requiring essential, life saving tests and procedures and that these are not getting done, and the reason, there is not the funding to provide for these, so if there is not the extra funding for them, there is definitely not the extra funding for anything less than life saving.

Shakti wrote: »

how long do you think transgender patients wait for surgery?

I am not an expert and never have looked into it myself, but I would have assumed a minimum of a few years. A person I know started their hormone treatment over a year ago and though I have not really discussed the matter with them (I frankly don't see it as an issue worth discussing as it doesn't bother me), but the impression I got is that it is a terribly long process.

rainbow kirby

Transitioning saves lives and SRS is part of that for many. 14 surgeries over 5 years is not very much at all, to cut that out does not save a large amount for the health service and sends a message to the transgender community that their needs are not important to this government.

dlofnep

Links234 wrote: »

hey, why stop at the medical needs of trans people? why not stop treating people with broken bones? it's absurd.

They are not medical needs. I have long-term illness - I have medical needs. What they have is cosmetic needs. And while I'm wholly sympathetic to their cause - What other cosmetic alterations does the state fund? I'd be interested to know.

Your logic does your case no justice to be honest. You come across as intolerant to anyone who doesn't view this situation in the same light as you.

All medical needs of trans-gender people are covered, just like any other citizen of this state. You feel that they have a right to receive transformational surgery. Therefore if you believe that the state should fund it - instead of getting angry, and posting obscenities - it might benefit you to outline to the casual reader why you believe this should be the case.

wolfpawnat

Links234 wrote: »

European Convention on Human Rights Article 13, Right to an effective remedy.

my post here on the subject shows that this IS the effective treatment.

I have no doubt after a person has the surgery that they are more than satisfied, I watched the "Ladyboys" documentary 2 weeks ago and those who had the surgery were crying in happiness at the results, as I am sure that it makes them as though they are more a complete person.

An Effective Remedy, is not stating that the country's government, and in the tax payers should fund body altering surgery. I wish Ireland had the money to help with getting people the surgery they want but we just can't do it. We as a nation are f*cked financially.

catch me if you can

Gender reassignment surgery should be funded by the government. i have no experience of it but i can see it as a basic human right for transgender people. and as a taxpayer i would hope my taxes would go towards things like this. Also on a seperate note childless couples should get one free round of ivf.

emzolita

dlofnep wrote: »

They are not medical needs. I have long-term illness - I have medical needs. What they have is cosmetic needs. And while I'm wholly sympathetic to their cause - What other cosmetic alterations does the state fund? I'd be interested to know.

Hi i'm just interested to know do you consider the likes of anorexia or bulemia, or self harm etc a medical problem or are they cosmetic problems, It's gonna be a debate forever I know with transgender issues. I also have a LTI and I although I feel I shouldnt have to wait 5years on surgery, I do consider their plight just as bad tbh.
don't wanna open a Boards debate, just curious. x Em

IngazZagni

Links234 wrote: »

it's not even 14 people a year, it's 14 people over 5 years!



This is not non-essential surgery, and for citizens of an EU country, not having access to these surgeries (I think) would be a violation of their human rights.

It is not essential, there is no physical reason to have this done, it's a mental thing. Having access and having the surgery (part) funded are two different things. Of course I believe these surgeries should be allowed but only at private facilities and with no public financing. This is what we are talking about here.

wolfpawnat

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Transitioning saves lives and SRS is part of that for many. 14 surgeries over 5 years is not very much at all, to cut that out does not save a large amount for the health service and sends a message to the transgender community that their needs are not important to this government.

Without sounding harsh, this gov couldn't give a hoot about anyone! A tad OT I know, but it is true, SNA's are being cut showing that Special Needs students are not important to the government, People left unemployed by the recession are having their JSA cut showing they are no concern to the government.

I agree that something should be there to help people transition, but in the grand scheme of things, not many others will agree when wards are being shut, children being left behind academically, many thousands left to flee Ireland because of lack of work.

Shakti

Brian Walsh, T.D.

Constituency Office:
114 Bohermore, Galway
Tel: 091-513051,
Fax: 091-513050
Email :brian.walsh@oir.ie

We had the same **** from labour (Keaveny) this time last year eventually he retracted and apologised for his comments after first refusing to like an obstinate child. And now another Galway Politician gets asked the hard questions about why? they are failing in their duty to deal with the problems within the HSE (ie. waiting lists and A&E re.UCHG) and thus immediately pick on the smallest least represented group in the country to detract from their own continual political failure in their positions. What Keaveney and now no doubt Walsh is about to find out is just how under-serviced mis and under-represented transgender people are in healthcare in this country. Once again we are singled out and persecuted by by the Government WHY?.
TENI needs to contact Walsh immediately to clarify himself especially since he has given out unsubstantiated medical opinion as "FACT" unethical and very serious for a Doctor never mind a "politician".

Links234

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But we are not stopping the needs of trans people if they need an x-ray, they get an x-ray. Colon biopsies are are not being stopped by trans gender members of society society and no where in ANY of my posts have I EVER stated that!!!!:mad: I merely gave it as an example as I was watching it on the news earlier this week.

My posts state that the hospitals are backed up with people requiring essential, life saving tests and procedures and that these are not getting done, and the reason, there is not the funding to provide for these, so if there is not the extra funding for them, there is definitely not the extra funding for anything less than life saving.

you were quite plainly making the case that trans people were a drain on resources, suggesting that funds could make a difference elsewhere, and if the funding comes from out of state, which I'm fairly certain it does, then the amount of expenditure on trans people costs the state very little.

dlofnep

emzolita wrote: »

Hi i'm just interested to know do you consider the likes of anorexia or bulemia, or self harm etc a medical problem or are they cosmetic problems,

They are neither. They are psychological problems. Medical issues imply a requirement of medical attention. Cancer, diabetes, kidney failure - These are medical issues.

It should be noted that I've not stated my position on this - But I feel that the OP should be more collected when trying to orchestrate his/her feelings. I'm fully sympathetic to the idea of someone who views themselves as a different gender, and wishes to be physically transformed. There is a valid question from the tax payer however to ask whether or not they should have to fund cosmetic surgery. Even if you disagree with their premise, they have that right to ask without being attacked.

For example - I am short and it has greatly affected me my entire life. Do I have the right to ask the state to fund limb-lengthening surgery for me?

Mr. Presentable

I cannot see in the details of the first post where Brian Walsh attacked anyone.


Surgery funded by the state or insurance is and should be for physical ailments. Transgenderism is a psychological ailment, by which I mean there is nothing phsically wrong with the person's body that would be fixed by the addition/removal of breasts (eg). However, what they do with their own money is none of my business and if the want to buy surgery that's OK.

IngazZagni

Links234 wrote: »

you were quite plainly making the case that trans people were a drain on resources, suggesting that funds could make a difference elsewhere, and if the funding comes from out of state, which I'm fairly certain it does, then the amount of expenditure on trans people costs the state very little.

It doesn't matter how much or how little it is. This is Government waste and we need as a Country to eliminate this waste no matter how small or big it is. It all adds up. I don't see any valid argument for this being an essential procedure for someone and it is of my opinion that if something isn't essential it should not be payed either in part or in full by any public expenditure.

Human rights is a completely different issue and something completely unrelated to whether it should be publicly funded or not.

wolfpawnat

Links234 wrote: »

you were quite plainly making the case that trans people were a drain on resources, suggesting that funds could make a difference elsewhere, and if the funding comes from out of state, which I'm fairly certain it does, then the amount of expenditure on trans people costs the state very little.

:rolleyes: I stated that the government will not be able to give funding to that when essential life saving procedures are not getting the funding they require to save live. There is a difference between an improvement in life and actually saving one, and the most people would rather save a life above the other option.

I fail to see why you are having this set on me when I agree that there should be something to help people in this area, but that it is just not feasible in a time of such financially problems!

Meesared

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

I cannot see in the details of the first post where Brian Walsh attacked anyone.


Surgery funded by the state or insurance is and should be for physical ailments. Transgenderism is a psychological ailment, by which I mean there is nothing phsically wrong with the person's body that would be fixed by the addition/removal of breasts (eg). However, what they do with their own money is none of my business and if the want to buy surgery that's OK.

I know I couldn't afford it on my wages, How am I supposed to pay for it??

Meesared

wolfpawnat wrote: »

:rolleyes: I stated that the government will not be able to give funding to that when essential life saving procedures are not getting the funding they require to save live. There is a difference between an improvement in life and actually saving one, and the most people would rather save a life above the other option.

I fail to see why you are having this set on me when I agree that there should be something to help people in this area, but that it is just not feasible in a time of such financially problems!

There are many surgeries paid for by the HSE that only give an improvement to life, and noone is questioning those, why should this be any different?

Links234

dlofnep wrote: »

They are not medical needs. I have long-term illness - I have medical needs. What they have is cosmetic needs. And while I'm wholly sympathetic to their cause - What other cosmetic alterations does the state fund? I'd be interested to know.

Your logic does your case no justice to be honest. You come across as intolerant to anyone who doesn't view this situation in the same light as you.

All medical needs of trans-gender people are covered, just like any other citizen of this state. You feel that they have a right to receive transformational surgery. Therefore if you believe that the state should fund it - instead of getting angry, and posting obscenities - it might benefit you to outline to the casual reader why you believe this should be the case.

No quite frankly, I am not very tolerant of "other views" if those views are to slur medically necessary treatments as being 'cosmetic'.

I'll refer you back to post #9 where I've already highlighted why it is important and effective treatment, and quoting from the same study again, I have bolded some very relevant information:

Risks associated with Untreated Gender Dysphoria
Transsexualism is now understood to be innate and somatic9 rather than a lifestyle choice; similarly, it is debatable whether transsexualism and other manifestations of atypical gender development should be classified as psychiatric disorders. However, the extreme Gender Dysphoria experienced by transsexual individuals may be considered a serious psychiatric condition that causes debilitating psychological distress, with alarmingly high associated rates of suicidality and self-mutilation among those refused surgery. Thus, untreated sufferers commonly represent a significant burden on psychiatric and social services. This view is expressed by the Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism10:

“Deprived of appropriate treatment, trans people are likely to function less well and to suffer ongoing health problems resulting in a greater strain on the National Health Service.”

And by the American Medical Association11:
“GID, if left untreated, can result in clinically significant psychological distress, dysfunction, debilitating depression and, for some people without access to appropriate medical care and treatment, suicidality and death… Delaying treatment for GID can cause and/or aggravate additional serious and expensive health problems, such as stress-related physical illnesses, depression, and substance abuse problems, which further endanger patients’ health and strain the health care system.”

The personal accounts of transsexual people and their clinicians further demonstrate that surgical considerations often represent, quite literally, a matter of life and death12.

A recent research project commissioned by the British Government’s Equalities Review13 included the largest survey ever conducted into suicidal tendencies among trans14 people. Of over 800 respondents, a high rate of attempted suicide was reported. “Almost 14% of adult trans people have attempted to commit suicide more than twice, and 34.4%, over 1 in 3, reported having attempted suicide at least once as an adult.” Alarmingly high as these figures are, they may in fact be underestimates, owing to the tendency of people not to disclose past suicide attempts; in addition, this survey only sampled the living, so instances of successful suicide were not included.

It was suggested that it would be difficult to conceive of any other demographic group of whom over a third would attempt suicide at least once in adulthood, especially as other evidence suggested that “this is, on the whole, an otherwise well functioning group who have achieved very good educational level, and who are not suffering from a severe clinically diagnosed depressive illness.” The survey asserts that the high instance of suicidality does not therefore stem from inherent psychiatric instability, but from the weighty burden of gender dysphoria and discrimination suffered by trans people: “Practitioners, at every level of medicine, ignore the trans person’s abilities to cope with ongoing crises that would destroy other people, their educational standing and the nature of the actual illness they are presenting with.”

The Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) emphasises the role of medical practitioners in reducing the risk of suicide among trans people, through appropriate medical treatment15:

“It is also understood that suicidality is relatively common in trans people. Many report that they were at their most vulnerable around the time that they finally sought treatment because they realised that they could not continue as they were… So those making decisions about funding and providing treatment need to take account of the impact on mental health if treatment is denied or unreasonably delayed.”

Extra considerations are presented in the Department of Health’s recent guidance on the care of gender variant people16, which identifies surgery as being “not only a desirable, but an urgent and constant preoccupation – even an obsession” for some patients. “Delays in the ‘system’, whether clinical or financial, cause a great deal of stress”, while “The inability to access timely treatment may also be a cause of suicidal feelings.” As well as suicide, a number of other risks is identified:

"Stress leads a number of trans people to self-harm and even to attempt suicide.… These feelings may occur at any time, but they are often associated with the realisation that it is impossible to continue life in the pretransition role. For some, the choice is stark: either the gender issue is addressed, or there is no future… Through frustration or anxiety, or both, some trans people self-harm by cutting their arms and legs and, occasionally, their offending sex characteristics, such as breasts (trans men) or the penis and scrotum (trans women). Alcohol and other substance misuse may also be a factor, especially where there is family breakdown and social isolation.”

The document goes on to reference a recent examination of the high incidence of trans people in the sex industry17; data from this article are used to highlight another area of concern:

“Delay in accessing treatment may also drive some trans people into sex work in order to pay for private services. They may be living very risky lives both in terms of sexually transmitted diseases and potential violence. Worldwide, the number of transgender people who are HIV positive is high. Figures for the UK are not known, but they might be anticipated to be lower since treatment for gender variance is available on the NHS."

Collectively, these factors may render Oxfordshire PCT’s recent restrictions on the provision of treatment for gender dysphoria rather less financially viable in the long-term than a more accommodating funding policy would have been. As the Priorities Forum heard during a meeting in 2006: “The cost of not treating patients could potentially be high, if costs of dealing with complications following private treatment are taken into account.” … “[Dr Chris Bass] noted that this is a group of patients which can use a lot of NHS resources in terms of psychiatric care and crisis team services.” 18

In conclusion, severe gender dysphoria can incur both a high risk for sufferers and a significant drain on the funds allocated for healthcare. Press for Change, a leading political lobbying and educational organisation within the UK, which readily describes severe untreated Gender Dysphoria as a fatal disorder19, emphasises that “Gender reassignment surgery is a one-off expense, enormously cheaper than the alternative… The alternative for transsexual people who are not treated is likely to be that (if they do not kill themselves) they become a lifelong burden on the psychiatric and/or social services, unable to lead a normal life, unable to work (and pay taxes) or to make a contribution to society.”

Annasopra

dlofnep wrote: »

They are not medical needs. I have long-term illness - I have medical needs. What they have is cosmetic needs. And while I'm wholly sympathetic to their cause - What other cosmetic alterations does the state fund? I'd be interested to know.

I'm interested that you state that this is a cosmetic need as a fact. When in fact it is anything but. What about someone who needs this because of their psychological needs? for example they might commit suicide if they don't have the operation?

Annasopra

IngazZagni wrote: »

It is not essential, there is no physical reason to have this done, it's a mental thing. Having access and having the surgery (part) funded are two different things. Of course I believe these surgeries should be allowed but only at private facilities and with no public financing. This is what we are talking about here.

So basically treatment for a persons mental health is never essential?

dlofnep

Links234 wrote: »

No quite frankly, I am not very tolerant of "other views" if those views are to slur medically necessary treatments as being 'cosmetic'.

No, you're just intolerant to anyone who does not view this matter in the same light as you do. Nobody disputes the psychological trauma that comes with this issue, and that for the majority, if not all of the people involved - surgery is the ultimate solution.

However - the surgery itself is still cosmetic. The cause of the strain on the health service is not because medical issues, but rather because of psychological issues. Their bodies function just as fine as anyone elses.

I refer you back to my point - RE: Limb Lengthening surgery. Being short can have a tremendous impact on one's life - from job opportunities, to dating, to self-confidence.. Do you believe that the state should fund limb lengthening surgery which can cost up to €50,000 a pop?

Shakti

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My posts state that the hospitals are backed up with people requiring essential, life saving tests and procedures and that these are not getting done, and the reason, there is not the funding to provide for these, so if there is not the extra funding for them, there is definitely not the extra funding for anything less than life saving.

backed up? why do you need backed up? unless of course you are trying to suggest that waiting lists are the result of transgender people accessing essential healthcare and this is cause of waiting lists and underfunding in the HSE? Laughable much ????????

I am not an expert and never have looked into it myself,

No doubt thats Brian Walshs' problem too, but you as well as he are still willing to try and do a little damage first and spread some ignorance before you manage to educate yourself, yawn.
On the other hand though Ignorance seems to be quite well represented and funded in Ireland perhaps we should make some cuts there instead.

Meesared

dlofnep wrote: »

No, you're just intolerant to anyone who does not view this matter in the same light as you do. Nobody disputes the psychological trauma that comes with this issue, and that for the majority, if not all of the people involved - surgery is the ultimate solution.

However - the surgery itself is still cosmetic. The cause of the strain on the health service is not because medical issues, but rather because of psychological issues. Their bodies function just as fine as anyone elses.

I refer you back to my point - RE: Limb Lengthening surgery. Being short can have a tremendous impact on one's life - from job opportunities, to dating, to self-confidence.. Do you believe that the state should fund limb lengthening surgery which can cost up to €50,000 a pop?

Oh come on you know thats a ridicilous comparison

Annasopra

Shakti wrote: »

TENI needs to contact Walsh immediately to clarify himself especially since he has given out unsubstantiated medical opinion as "FACT" unethical and very serious for a Doctor never mind a "politician".

I understand from TENI Facebook page that Vanessa Lacey and Brian Walsh will be on Today FM at 4:30 today

dlofnep

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm interested that you state that this is a cosmetic need as a fact. When in fact it is anything but. What about someone who needs this because of their psychological needs? for example they might commit suicide if they don't have the operation?

I have already stated that it is because of their psychological needs. It might serve you well to read the rest of my posts on this matter.

dlofnep

Meesared wrote: »

Oh come on you know thats a ridicilous comparison

No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. It's an absolutely valid comparison.

Meesared

dlofnep wrote: »

I have already stated that it is because of their psychological needs. It might serve you well to read the rest of my posts on this matter.

Are those psychological needs not important enough when it could lead that person to commit suicide?

Annasopra

IngazZagni wrote: »

Human rights is a completely different issue and something completely unrelated to whether it should be publicly funded or not.

Do you know anything about human rights at all?

dlofnep

Meesared wrote: »

Are those psychological needs not important enough when it could lead that person to commit suicide?

I never stated that they were not important.