NHS wields the axe on 17 'unnecessary procedures'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northerner

Northerner

Admin (Retired)
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Hundreds of thousands of NHS patients will be refused operations judged futile as part of cost-cutting measures in the health service.

Procedures including injections for back pain, surgery to help snorers and knee arthroscopies for arthritis form part of an initial list of 17 operations that will be discontinued completely or highly restricted by NHS England as many of these problems get better without treatment.

The health service hopes the measures will save £200m a year by reducing risky or unnecessary procedures. It will tell patients they have a responsibility to the NHS not to request useless treatment.

Varicose vein surgery and tonsil removal also feature on the list of routine operations to be axed as part of NHS England’s drive to cease outdated and ineffective treatments.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/29/nhs-wields-the-axe-on-17-unnecessary-procedures
 
And now IVF services are slashed according to the Guardians front page. Not an unnecessary procedure.
 
Which is why I think trying to push for free dental services for people with diabetes is a futile exercise. Looks like even carpal tunnel surgery is going to be withheld. People can be left totally debilitated with it and struggle to work.

NHS England are on a mission at the moment and there’s a lot of casualties in their wake including people like me who are now to be denied life saving cancer meds under their creative interpretation of NICE guidelines. It isn’t pretty and it isn’t fair but they seem to have their sights set on balancing the books regardless of human cost.
 
mikeyB said:
And now IVF services are slashed according to the Guardians front page. Not an unnecessary procedure.
Click to expand...
I've heard some say IVF isn't necessary. They priorities other things.
 
How much will the potential
Ralph-YK said:
I've heard some say IVF isn't necessary. They priorities other things.
Click to expand...
1. How much would the potential new taxpayer contribute over their lifetime.
2. Positive Eugenics - if the child were unwanted the effort would not being made.
 
bamba said:
How much will the potential

1. How much would the potential new taxpayer contribute over their lifetime.
2. Positive Eugenics - if the child were unwanted the effort would not being made.
Click to expand...
Does the need to have a child of your own outweigh the necessity for life saving cancer treatment...I believe that's the point being made...I have no opinion on IVF treatment either way...however it doesn't save lives...there are other options available such as adoption...or surrogacy...whereas as @Amigo points out cancer patients are being denied life saving treatments in order to balance the books...there's only one conclusion that could lead to... it's an abhorrent practice to deny those patients..it shouldn't be an 'us' or 'them' however in those circumstances I know which I would prioritise...it wouldn't be IVF.
 
bamba said:
How much will the potential

1. How much would the potential new taxpayer contribute over their lifetime.
2. Positive Eugenics - if the child were unwanted the effort would not being made.
Click to expand...
It's eugenics if the government or doctors are deciding who can or can't have children.
Bubbsie said:
Does the need to have a child of your own outweigh the necessity for life saving cancer treatment...I believe that's the point being made...I have no opinion on IVF treatment either way...however it doesn't save lives..
Click to expand...
That is the sort of thing we've to consider. While it's important not to dismiss the impact on individuals of any condition (and value everyone), there is a difference between the effect of different conditions.
 
Bubbsie said:
Does the need to have a child of your own outweigh the necessity for life saving cancer treatment...I believe that's the point being made...I have no opinion on IVF treatment either way...however it doesn't save lives...there are other options available such as adoption...or surrogacy...whereas as @Amigo points out cancer patients are being denied life saving treatments in order to balance the books...there's only one conclusion that could lead to... it's an abhorrent practice to deny those patients..it shouldn't be an 'us' or 'them' however in those circumstances I know which I would prioritise...it wouldn't be IVF.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree - I don't have much of an opinion on IVF either (I can't imagine what it's like, having had no trouble conceiving 3 children) but the first Mr Marten died of lung cancer 3 months after diagnosis, totally out of the blue, so I feel things such as cancer treatment really do have priority.
 
bamba said:
How much will the potential

1. How much would the potential new taxpayer contribute over their lifetime.
2. Positive Eugenics - if the child were unwanted the effort would not being made.
Click to expand...
I don't believe any form of Eugenics could be positive...the point of this thread is the lack of funding only...it is not about whether we should allow IVF...the point is can/will the NHS fund it...Eugenics has no place in this discussion.
 
Last edited:
I don't consider surgical procedures for gynecological conditions unnecessary, unless you're a man of course.
 
I agree, Bubbsie, but the original proposer of health and social security, Beveridge, was a lifelong eugenecist. In his original report he proposed a lower amount of child allowance for poor people to discourage them from breeding.

The current plans to limit treatment aren’t that adrift from that mindset - it’s government deciding what is and isn’t a bearable condition. Conditions like these were what overwhelmed the NHS shortly after it was founded. The solution was waiting lists, not refusal to treat.

And if treating these conditions is unnecessary, why were they being treated before? Just for fun? Some of the operations, like tonsillectomy, have died a natural death anyway. But as anyone with varicose veins with consequential cellulitis or varicose ulcers will tell you, it’s not just a cosmetic procedure.

Decisions made by men in suits will eventually kill the NHS.
 
mikeyB said:
I agree, Bubbsie, but the original proposer of health and social security, Beveridge, was a lifelong eugenecist. In his original report he proposed a lower amount of child allowance for poor people to discourage them from breeding.

The current plans to limit treatment aren’t that adrift from that mindset - it’s government deciding what is and isn’t a bearable condition. Conditions like these were what overwhelmed the NHS shortly after it was founded. The solution was waiting lists, not refusal to treat.

And if treating these conditions is unnecessary, why were they being treated before? Just for fun? Some of the operations, like tonsillectomy, have died a natural death anyway. But as anyone with varicose veins with consequential cellulitis or varicose ulcers will tell you, it’s not just a cosmetic procedure.

Decisions made by men in suits will eventually kill the NHS.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion...I don't agree with it...it is extremely subjective & I will repeat Eugenics have no place...or application to this thread.
 
mikeyB said:
I agree, Bubbsie, but the original proposer of health and social security, Beveridge, was a lifelong eugenecist. In his original report he proposed a lower amount of child allowance for poor people to discourage them from breeding.

The current plans to limit treatment aren’t that adrift from that mindset - it’s government deciding what is and isn’t a bearable condition. Conditions like these were what overwhelmed the NHS shortly after it was founded. The solution was waiting lists, not refusal to treat.

And if treating these conditions is unnecessary, why were they being treated before? Just for fun? Some of the operations, like tonsillectomy, have died a natural death anyway. But as anyone with varicose veins with consequential cellulitis or varicose ulcers will tell you, it’s not just a cosmetic procedure.

Decisions made by men in suits will eventually kill the NHS.
Click to expand...

I must admit, suggesting now that procedures the NHS have carried out for 70 yrs are now ‘surgically futile’ seems very odd to me. That’s absolutely not what they mean of course.

Every case must be judged on its merits. People with my condition get lymphocytic infiltration into the tonsils and believe me, when they prevent breathing, removal of them isn’t ‘surgically futile’.
 
[QUOTE

Decisions made by men in suits will eventually kill the NHS.[/QUOTE]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top