UKC

Just been listening to the Jeremy vine show (something I generally avoid as much as possible)
A woman wanted to be sterilised on the NHS, I didnt even know that this was an option for women, seems odd that you can have some optional treatments on the NHS but others you cant, anyway.

Her argument is that she doesnt want to have to take contraceptives or have an IUD, and is certain that she doesnt want to have children, but shes too young to have it done on the NHS and cant afford the £1500 to have it done privately.

My argument against this is - if she doesnt want to have children or use contraceptives then surely she should just not have sex. That is sex's sole purpose for existing is to have children. I dont get why we should be paying for normal healthy women to be sterilised so that they can continue having sex purely for pleasure!

(im not talking about sterilisation on medical/health grounds here)

In reply to ow arm:

I'm going to assume you are trolling.

In reply to ow arm:

But we should all pay for contraceptives (that everyone else is entitled to on prescription) for the rest of this woman's life?

Expecting someone not to have sex to save money is just stupid

In reply to ow arm:

I think it would be massively cheaper in the the long run to sterilise a lot of people after 2 children if they are unable and not likely to ever be able to support more than 2 children without the income required to do so. Compared to 18 years of benefits, £1500 sounds like a bargain.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Same.

In reply to ow arm:

One of the most idiotic posts I've ever seen on UKC...and that is saying something...

In reply to ow arm:

How old was this woman?

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/female-sterilisation...

"Who can have it done?

Almost any woman can be sterilised. However, sterilisation should only be considered by women who do not want any more children, or do not want children at all. Once you are sterilised it is very difficult to reverse the process, so it's important to consider the other options available before making your decision. Sterilisation reversal is not usually available on the NHS.
Surgeons are more willing to perform sterilisation when women are over 30 years old and have had children, although some younger women who have never had a baby choose it."

In reply to ow arm:

Indeed, after having had sex twice in order to produce my two children, then getting sterilised, I've completely given it up. There's just no purpose to it any more.

In reply to ow arm:


Is masturbation allowable?

In reply to Lusk:

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate

A few years back a senator in Oklahoma proposed an amendment to a bill to include "any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/09/spilled-sem...

(The intention was to show how ridiculous the original "personhood" bill was)

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I was just humming that tune in my head when I read the OP. The only other person I have met who subscribed to "sex only for procreation not fun" wore a black dress and headscarf and claimed to be my sister for some reason...

In reply to Clarence:

It actually sounds like something a men's rights activist (AKA a sexist) might say if you ask me.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I'm not sure about this tendancy to attribute trolling to the OP any topic that is stupid. Being generous of spirit I like to just assume that the OP is a brain-dead idiot.

In reply to ow arm:

I had my penis sterilised on the NHS purely so I can spray sperm free spunk around for nothing other than sexual pleasure.

In reply to Sally Bustyerface:

I just like to give them the benefit of doubt: doubt that they haven't thought through their post because they are, to use your words, a brain-dead idiot.

In reply to ow arm:

Then plese enlighten me instead of insulting me, far from being braindead I can assure you.
Am I not entitled to a viewpoint if it differs from the majority?

In reply to ow arm: Don't worry, if people call you stupid that's just their viewpoint.

P.s. Child benefit is £20.50 per week for the first child. See if you can work out how many times £20.50 goes into £1500.

In reply to ow arm:

So the first question has to be; Have you ever had recreational sex or do you plan on starting/expanding your family every time you have sex?

secondly; have you ever used subsidised contraception (you or your partner) and have you considered the cost?

And finally, man can have a vasectomy on the NHS so what's the difference?

My guess is that most people will have had recreational sex at some point and at some point will have relied on some form of subsidised contraception be that free condoms given out by health workers, contraceptive pills or longer term options like coils or surgical options.

If this woman wants to be sterilised and she's thought about the options then it's not for us to be telling her otherwise and the money issue is minor if compared to the alternatives of having kids or funding alternative contraception options.

In reply to gethin_allen:
i'm not against recreational sex and i do realise that the contraception forms have to be paid for somehow, we do pay some amount towards prescriptions anyway.
i think more than anything this made me realise how many options that are available on the nhs for free for things that people want rather than need
i don't like having to wear glasses or contact lenses can i get free laser eye surgery on nhs? i couldn't function without glasses as i was born with poor eye sight

In reply to ow arm:
In the UK, Caesarean sections have been found to cost an average of £1,701 while a vaginal delivery costs an average £749. The Audit Commission has estimated that a 1% rise in Caesarean section rates costs the NHS £5m per year (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology ; 2002). - See more at: http://www.institute.nhs.uk/building_capability/general/promoting_normal_bi...

So sterilisation vs giving birth seems cost effective.

In reply to ow arm:

finally a sensible counter argument
I really dont get all this nonsense with trolling. Its a discussion lets have some input, facts, knowledge etc, lets learn from each other rather than name call like children

In reply to ow arm:

Contraception prescriptions aren't charged like other ones.

In reply to ow arm:

I live in Wales where we don't pay for prescriptions at the point of care.

And as mentioned above, the contraception prescriptions are different.

I still think it's not bad value for money to pay £1500 to save a fortune in future care costs.

In reply to ow arm:



You are entitled to your viewpoint but you really should expect some people to not share the same viewpoint especially when it sounds suspiciously sexist.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I didnt realise it was being sexist, I was merely continuing on from what was being discussed on radio 1, the gender was irrelevant

No I fully expected people to have an opposing view point, and gladly consider theirs (even if they arent open minded enough to consider mine). If I already knew everything I wouldnt need to talk to anyone or ever ask any questions, however as I only have my own experiences and knowledge to draw on Im willing to accept correction when Im wrong or simply share a view which will undoubtedly have both positive and negative aspects.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Thats a very sound argument in her favour, I agree it would save money in the long term.
Ive nothing against sterilisation / vasectomies at all, the question I was pondering is why should the NHS pay for certain things but not others, especially when they arent medically 'needed'.

In reply to ow arm:

Well, why do you think she shouldn't have sex?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
I didnt say I dont think she should have sex, Im just suggesting it as an alternative to contraceptives / sterilisation.
sex = reproduction +/- pleasure
she doesnt want to reproduce therefore her only reason for wanting sex is pleasure, and I was asking why should the NHS pay for her to enjoy herself? Sex isnt a biological requirement beyond reproduction so she could live a completely normal life without it.
Thats just one way of looking at it, but as others have said, another point is the money saving regarding prescribed contraceptives or costs of child birth / welfare, which I hadnt thought about at that point.

In reply to ow arm:

No, but it is a relevant question as you said it was your argument and it appears to be the only argument you posited.

In reply to gethin_allen:



I thought the age limit was to try and reduce the possibility of a woman changing her mind, and then possibly suing the NHS ?

In reply to ow arm:


More realistically, for humans (and at least some other primates), sex is for pleasure and bonding, with a small amount of reproduction.


The NHS also works to improve the lives of people who have already reproduced and raised their children, or who will never have children for various reasons. Do you have similar reservations about this?

In reply to skog:

I have never had cause to consider it before, I am always open to new information, Itd be good if we could all learn something new every day.

I imagine a lot of treatments are granted / refused based on the clinician / consultant / hospitals particular policies and can vary from one region to another. Some will be governed by national law / policy.
It makes sense in some respect that women are made to wait to a certain point so that they have plenty of time to consider their options, yet for those who are decisive and unwaivering then its quite mean to deny them for many years.
I'd imagine its a huge area trying to decide which treatments can be offered on the health service and under which conditions etc, I dont think Id fancy that role as your bound to upset someone regardless of what decision you make.

In reply to ow arm:

If you want sensible discussion then you need to be more careful how you word your OP.

In reply to DaveHK:

well in that case it would seem that I was inadvertently trolling
My apologies all.

In reply to ow arm:

Seems fairly reasonable. This is a bit of a 'thinking aloud' thread for you, isn't it?

In reply to ow arm:

Same here, dude, although my poor eyesight wasn't congenital. My optician said it was caused by reading in very poor light too often. But my priest says it was caused by, er.... not enough recreational sex. Which he also says I shouldn't be having at all. It all very confusing.

In reply to ow arm:

Given the reaction you've got, here's a couple of hints about how to think about this sort of thing:

- Forget about daft, moralistic points of "principle" like "we shouldn't pay for her to have sex purely for pleasure". In this example, the taxpayer is not paying for that. They're paying for an elective treatment that means someone can't have children and so no longer requires contraception. Whether or not someone has sex a lot, or gets a lot of pleasure from it is unknowable and not useful information when it comes to thinking about the cost.

- Think through what can be changed and what can't be changed to see what *realistic* options are on the table. Hint - telling people not to have sex (and them obeying your order) isn't one of these options, it is spurious crap and has no value.

- Analyse the pros and cons of those options, thinking about knock-on costs. The evidence isn't always available for this, so sometimes you have use a bit judgement based on what you know to be true about the world. Run through scenarios and think about where they end up, on average (i.e. take a hundred people in x position and try to make a judgement about how it most commonly pans out). If you really want to come up with a viewpoint worth listening to, see what evidence is out there and make sure your assumptions are consistent with it.

- Come up with an idea that presents the best realistic option, and show that it's better than the status quo or the scenario in question. If you can draw on some evidence to show how this idea is better than the status quo, it may well be compelling.

Hope this helps.
-

In reply to ow arm:

If you really want a good argument ivf is probably a good place to start.
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/889.aspx?CategoryID=54
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-193870/Can-NHS-afford-400m-IVF-bi...


*runs away before everyone slates me for posting a daily hate mail link*

In reply to skog:


If youve read any of my previous ones, they pretty much are too!

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


I think its cheaper regardless isn't it.

Isn't lifespan increases and the risk of cancers reduced?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Women who request such things are offered counselling before any decision.

I actually know someone who asked their doctor to be sterilised and was refused by their doctor. She just accepted that this was the way it was and she couldn't change it although she often mentioned she wasn't happy with it.
I think she was younger than the person on the radio at the time.

In reply to ow arm:

It's not just the cost or the age of the woman, though, what about the risk associated with the operation? Much smaller and less intrusive for a man to have a vasectomy.

All operations carry risk, and the NHS should rightly be looking to reduce unnecessary operations

In reply to ow arm:



But if you are entitled to hold that opinion then surely the others are entitled to hold their opinion about yours and (since you've expressed your opinion in a public forum) express those opinions.