‘Treatments for tattoo removal, male pattern baldness or penile implants are no longer being funded on the NHS. Why they were in the first place is beyond me but there you go.’
What would you do if you were awarded a Nobel Prize?
Would you hold it aloft and scream “Yeeeeeeeees!” before dancing over to the runners up, waving it in their faces, pump the air like a drunk on a stag night, yell “Oooga oooga!”, run across the stage, slide on your knees with your jumper pulled up over your head, play a bit of air guitar then sprint for the bar?
Of course you wouldn’t. Unless you’re a midwife of course - they have different rules from the rest of us. That’s a joke by the way.
Anyway, I don’t think that is the way Nobel Prizes are accepted. FA Cups maybe, but not the Nobel Prize. It’s not like winning something really big like I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here, is it? I imagine Nobel Prize winners aren’t really in it for the rewards. They are probably surprised by the whole thing, so busy are they doing science or medicine or trying to cut back on war.
‘Treatments for tattoo removal, male pattern baldness or penile implants are no longer being funded on the NHS. Why they were in the first place is beyond me but there you go’
It was appropriate I felt that Professor Robert Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2010 for his groundbreaking work on infertility. He has remained at the cutting edge of what is essentially a new branch of medicine, one that has brought hope and happiness to thousands of people.
I love this man even though I have never met him. By inventing IVF, he enabled my wife and I to have a child. So cheers, Bob.
IVF is a good thing. It is a remarkable thing. But should it be available for free on the NHS? I’m not sure it should.
I say this as someone who thinks the health service is best defended if it concentrates on the pursuit of health rather than that of happiness.
It appears that many trusts are restricting services to save money. Treatments for tattoo removal, male pattern baldness or penile implants are no longer being funded on the NHS. Why they were in the first place is beyond me but there you go. Other treatments being restricted include hip replacements, cataracts and IVF.
Is it me, or are those lists clinically random? Of course we can make a case for the psychological needs of people needing a tattoo removed, or some genitals reworked or, more significantly, a round of IVF - but these are not health “needs”. They are routes to happiness.
Hip replacements, knee replacements, cataract surgery - these are health needs and, by putting so many different treatments under review, we run the risk of creating confusion over the purpose of the NHS.
I think people who need IVF but can’t afford it should be supported. I think a separate fund should be available for them. But it should not come from an NHS budget that is under threat of restriction and manipulation.
Our first responsibility is to the unwell, not to the unhappy. With treatments that enable people to walk or see
being denied under a blanket of illogical clinical prioritisations, patients and services are at risk. If we lose sight of the prime purpose of the NHS, all patients will suffer.