green_man Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34397794 This one is highly sensitive discussion therefore I hope we can discuss it with a degree of respect. Doctors have been granted approval and the go ahead to begin womb transplantation for those who for whatever medical reason have been unable to conceive naturally. The estimated cost for each transplant is currently approximated at around £50,000 which in my opinion is a cost that the NHS can't currently afford and money that quite frankly should be invested elsewhere in order to preserve life. At the minute there are multiple breakthrough cancer drugs and treatments that have proven as effective in both fighting and eliminating cancerous cells. These drugs have been licensed and are available in other countries throughout the world however at present we haven't licensed them and rolled them out in the UK because quite simply we can't afford them. Surely in the immediate future with full consideration going into the current financial strains on the NHS, we should be investing everything into the preservation of life as opposed to facilitating childbirth? I don't take this decision lightly and I understand in full that it must be horrible to be unable to conceive however I ask this. If you had to chose between having a baby or receiving the best possible healthcare should you become "potentially" terminally ill, which would you opt for?. What is more important to you? Preserving your own life or creating life? I don't have children and yes I would love children however I have to honestly answer that I would opt for preserving my own life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Hasn't this been paid for by a charity and not the NHS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 This really is a sensitive subject and I also hope it can be discussed with respect! Personally, the preservation of life is more important. The people in my life are already here and of course more important (to me) than those who are not yet with us and I would like to see them treated and given the opportunity to live.. However, there are those who desire to have children and they will have gone through their own personal hell to achieve the dream of having children and why shouldn't they also have their wish? It's a tough one.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_man Posted September 30, 2015 Author Share Posted September 30, 2015 Hasn't this been paid for by a charity and not the NHS? Initially yes but the overall ambition is to have the procedure available on and funded by the NHS which at the minute I don't really see as feasible. I am all for research and pioneering new life changing stuff however at present I feel that money should be made available where it is most required. We still have financial shortfalls in certain areas and to be fair should we cut costs in other non-urgent places and focus more on making treatment available then it would quite simply save lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Initially yes but the overall ambition is to have the procedure available on and funded by the NHS which at the minute I don't really see as feasible. I am all for research and pioneering new life changing stuff however at present I feel that money should be made available where it is most required. We still have financial shortfalls in certain areas and to be fair should we cut costs in other non-urgent places and focus more on making treatment available then it would quite simply save lives. Where do you draw the line? There are lots of treatments paid for by the NHS that don't save lives... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 This really is a sensitive subject and I also hope it can be discussed with respect! Personally, the preservation of life is more important. The people in my life are already here and of course more important (to me) than those who are not yet with us and I would like to see them treated and given the opportunity to live.. However, there are those who desire to have children and they will have gone through their own personal hell to achieve the dream of having children and why shouldn't they also have their wish? It's a tough one.. Does this mean that all fertility treatment and IVF on the NHS should be suspended immediately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34397794 This one is highly sensitive discussion therefore I hope we can discuss it with a degree of respect. Doctors have been granted approval and the go ahead to begin womb transplantation for those who for whatever medical reason have been unable to conceive naturally. The estimated cost for each transplant is currently approximated at around £50,000 which in my opinion is a cost that the NHS can't currently afford and money that quite frankly should be invested elsewhere in order to preserve life. At the minute there are multiple breakthrough cancer drugs and treatments that have proven as effective in both fighting and eliminating cancerous cells. These drugs have been licensed and are available in other countries throughout the world however at present we haven't licensed them and rolled them out in the UK because quite simply we can't afford them. Surely in the immediate future with full consideration going into the current financial strains on the NHS, we should be investing everything into the preservation of life as opposed to facilitating childbirth? I don't take this decision lightly and I understand in full that it must be horrible to be unable to conceive however I ask this. If you had to chose between having a baby or receiving the best possible healthcare should you become "potentially" terminally ill, which would you opt for?. What is more important to you? Preserving your own life or creating life? I don't have children and yes I would love children however I have to honestly answer that I would opt for preserving my own life. I'm more concerned about the ongoing cost of homeopathy on the NHS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Does this mean that all fertility treatment and IVF on the NHS should be suspended immediately? What are you talking about???? How have you got that from my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Initially yes but the overall ambition is to have the procedure available on and funded by the NHS which at the minute I don't really see as feasible. I am all for research and pioneering new life changing stuff however at present I feel that money should be made available where it is most required. We still have financial shortfalls in certain areas and to be fair should we cut costs in other non-urgent places and focus more on making treatment available then it would quite simply save lives. it sounds like a perfect case of a procedure available privately for those who are willing and able to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Personally, the preservation of life is more important... I am sure that is high on the duties of the NHS; but the NHS should be about making people bodies work, as they are meant to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now