March 29, 2008 2:28 PM GMT
Actually this is not a new thing at all but due to advances in medicine it falls in to the 'Cuckoo Land scenario' of : is it worth spending a lot of money to treat someone who is terminally ill in order to give them a few more weeks or months of life?
So do we? Or do we say, sorry..but spending £5/10/20K on drugs for the little extra time is not cost effective.
But then aborting healthy foetusses while sending £1000s in IVf is not either...why not just pay pregnant women to have the baby then give it to whoever wants one?
And just how many 'vegetables' are lingering in hospitals and nursing homes at this very moment? Do we wnat to introduce euthenasia or do we keep on spending?
But what is important is that the NHS basic rule is that all illnesses will be treated whatever the cost but life will not be prolonged regardless of cost.
Thats where emotion gets in the way of economics and makes for lurid headlines.
(This doens't apply to 'pervs/freaks/queers' who think they are in the wrong body..
. We have to thank the decades of transphobic media that has poisoned the minds of most 84% of NHS management and medics against GRS.)
Interestingly I or anyone else can have many £1000s work on our illnesses on just our doctors and specialists say-so but anything TG/GRS has to go to the local Special Funding Panel who are all probly among the 84% anti-GRS.