Gender re-assignment

miniboss

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2007
108
1
18
I'm getting tired of the gender re-assignment debate, of whether taxpayers should be on the hook for them. Personally, I think that medical science is ruining the natural order of things, making certain things possible, which by nature, wouldn't be. In the case of gender re-assignment, what did these people do before medical science evolved to the level to which the operation was possible? Nothing, pretend medical science is out of the picture. So should we as taxpayers be paying for liposuction, and tummy tucks? People who get them done say they feel pretty good about themselves afterwords. While we're at it, how about total facial plastic surgery for those who, by society's standards, are ugly, I think that will do wonders from a psychological standpoint, even a confidence booster. My bottom line, it's not a necessity, who ever wants it should be saving their pennies, taxpayers SHOULD NOT pay for them. One deals with the hand they are dealt.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
I'm getting tired of the gender re-assignment debate, of whether taxpayers should be on the hook for them. Personally, I think that medical science is ruining the natural order of things, making certain things possible, which by nature, wouldn't be. In the case of gender re-assignment, what did these people do before medical science evolved to the level to which the operation was possible? Nothing, pretend medical science is out of the picture. So should we as taxpayers be paying for liposuction, and tummy tucks? People who get them done say they feel pretty good about themselves afterwords. While we're at it, how about total facial plastic surgery for those who, by society's standards, are ugly, I think that will do wonders from a psychological standpoint, even a confidence booster. My bottom line, it's not a necessity, who ever wants it should be saving their pennies, taxpayers SHOULD NOT pay for them. One deals with the hand they are dealt.
There are a lot of people who agree that taxpayers should not be responsible for change of gender surgery. I waver a bit on it. I believe that if everyone who needs life or death surgery is taken care of then after that, elective surgery can be considered. Another surgery that in my opinion is at least as important as a change of gender, is, for the person who has lost a lot of weight and has excessive amounts of loose skin. This is important in both those who have taken the incentive to lose the weight themselves and those who have had the surgery to lose weight. (Gastric by-pass?) I have a friend who's brother has lost over 100 pounds himself - no surgery. He has a lot of excess skin and he has already been told that the government will not pay for the surgery he should have. I don't think his self image issues are any less important than someone wanting a gender change. His weight was reaching life and death for him. Most people wanting a gender change may be feeling like they are in a life or death situation but it is not the same.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Evidently miniboss doesn’t like gender reassignment surgery. That means nothing. If it is deemed to be medically necessary by qualified experts, I don’t see anything wrong with government funding it.

Government funds a wide variety of procedures, including abortion. Some people probably are opposed to government paying for abortions. But abortion is considered a medical procedure and hence is covered by the government.

Same with gender reassignment. It may not be a necessity, but I understand it can be a big help to some individuals, it helps them live a much fuller life. Government funds many procedures which some my not consider necessities, such as hip replacement, carpel tunnel etc.

In this case (as in practically every case), I differ to the experts. If experts say it is medically necessary (and I understand they have very stringent standards in deciding whether it is medically necessary or not), then I support government paying for it.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I believe Alberta has removed it from Provincial funding. About 4 years ago a group of IVF patients demanded the Alberta government justify paying for it and not IVF. They couldn't, but it appears the campaign may have backfired. Instead of bringing IVF in they have take GRS out.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I believe Alberta has removed it from Provincial funding. About 4 years ago a group of IVF patients demanded the Alberta government justify paying for it and not IVF. They couldn't, but it appears the campaign may have backfired. Instead of bringing IVF in they have take GRS out.

But regardless of where we stand on this issue, at least the government was forced to defend its policy on some logical ground. This means future governments will have to either fund both or cut funding for both, or come up with a good argument as to why fund one and not the other. As far as I'm concerned, the government should pass an official rationale for every law. This way, the law is forced to stand or fall based on its rationale. It would also force politicians to be more explicitely honest about the intent of their laws.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Personally, I think that medical science is ruining the natural order of things, making certain things possible, which by nature, wouldn't be. In the case of gender re-assignment, what did these people do before medical science evolved to the level to which the operation was possible? .

I don't see what that has to do with anything. By definition, everything we do in the medical field is interfering with the natural order of things. Before we discovered insulin for instance, diabetics would just die early. That was the natural order of things. That doesn't mean the government shouldn't pay for insulin. Medical care HAS evolved to the level where this operation is possible. It's such an uncommon surgery, I really don't think it is worthy of debate. I doubt the government spends much on it.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
. One deals with the hand they are dealt.
Why so, when modern medical science allows us to change the hand? I'd bet the genetic hand you've been dealt is pretty good or you wouldn't be saying that. Either that or it's not very good and you're resentful that you haven't received the assistance you think you should have had, so you don't want anyone else to get it either. Either way, I think you're completely wrong.

You realize, don't you, that the logical extreme of that argument is that there should be no medical intervention at all, we should just let nature take its course? Let half of us die of easily preventable infectious disease before we're 10 years old. That's what it used to be like only a few generations ago. My personal ethics tell me that if it's within our power to assist a troubled person then we are bound by duty and honour to do so. Perfectly simple: if you can help, then you help.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I'm getting tired of the hip replacement debate, of whether taxpayers should be on the hook for them. Personally, I think that medical science is ruining the natural order of things, making certain things possible, which by nature, wouldn't be. In the case of hip replacement, what did these people do before medical science evolved to the level to which the operation was possible? Nothing, pretend medical science is out of the picture. So should we as taxpayers be paying for stitches, and crutches? People who get them done say they feel pretty good about themselves afterwords. While we're at it, how about skin grafting for those who, by society's standards, are ugly due to some burn, I think that will do wonders from a psychological standpoint, even a confidence booster. My bottom line, it's not a necessity, who ever wants it should be saving their pennies, taxpayers SHOULD NOT pay for them. One deals with the hand they are dealt.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You realize, don't you, that the logical extreme of that argument is that there should be no medical intervention at all,

This issue is about who should pay for these surgeries, not about denying someone the opportunity to receive it.


My personal ethics tell me that if it's within our power to assist a troubled person then we are bound by duty and honour to do so. Perfectly simple: if you can help, then you help.

At what point do we consider an individual's subjectivity in determining what is 'medically necessary'. Just 'cause medicine is able to do something does not imply that there is a moral or ethical duty to do so let alone an obligation for society to assume the costs and responsibilities.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The Canada Health Act. The Act sets out the primary objective of Canadian health care policy, which is "to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."
Canada Health Act - Health Care System - Health Canada
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I'm getting tired of the gender re-assignment debate, of whether taxpayers should be on the hook for them. Personally, I think that medical science is ruining the natural order of things, making certain things possible, which by nature, wouldn't be. In the case of gender re-assignment, what did these people do before medical science evolved to the level to which the operation was possible? Nothing, pretend medical science is out of the picture. So should we as taxpayers be paying for liposuction, and tummy tucks? People who get them done say they feel pretty good about themselves afterwords. While we're at it, how about total facial plastic surgery for those who, by society's standards, are ugly, I think that will do wonders from a psychological standpoint, even a confidence booster. My bottom line, it's not a necessity, who ever wants it should be saving their pennies, taxpayers SHOULD NOT pay for them. One deals with the hand they are dealt.

I agree, we shouldn't be screwing around with MOTHER NATURE to begin with.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I'm getting tired of the hip replacement debate, of whether taxpayers should be on the hook for them. Personally, I think that medical science is ruining the natural order of things, making certain things possible, which by nature, wouldn't be. In the case of hip replacement, what did these people do before medical science evolved to the level to which the operation was possible? Nothing, pretend medical science is out of the picture. So should we as taxpayers be paying for stitches, and crutches? People who get them done say they feel pretty good about themselves afterwords. While we're at it, how about skin grafting for those who, by society's standards, are ugly due to some burn, I think that will do wonders from a psychological standpoint, even a confidence booster. My bottom line, it's not a necessity, who ever wants it should be saving their pennies, taxpayers SHOULD NOT pay for them. One deals with the hand they are dealt.

I'm a little more open minded about hip replacement as long as the guy needs the hip so he can work, otherwise maybe it should just be accepted as part of the dying process.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I believe Alberta has removed it from Provincial funding. About 4 years ago a group of IVF patients demanded the Alberta government justify paying for it and not IVF. They couldn't, but it appears the campaign may have backfired. Instead of bringing IVF in they have take GRS out.

Ontario still pays for it (I assume so does Quebec). I don't think IVF argument will work in Ontario.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I agree, we shouldn't be screwing around with MOTHER NATURE to begin with.


Really? Then I suppose we shouldn’t try to cure diabetes, arthritis, malaria, typhoid, cholera or indeed any kind of disease. Isn’t that interfering with MOTHER NATURE?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The Canada Health Act. The Act sets out the primary objective of Canadian health care policy, which is "to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers."
Canada Health Act - Health Care System - Health Canada



This is the global goal or mission statement that the healthcare system in Canada seeks to provide. It does not mean that any and everything that qualifies under that definition is automatically funded.

If this were the case, cosmetic surgeries or laser eye surgeries would also be covered as they can be instrumental in one's individual mental well-being.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Why changer the natural order of things? Um, because we can. People can see better because of synthetic lenses so they don't go about crashing into others as often as they would, people live in houses and things to keep weather out, etc.
If something is deemed medically necessary I don't care what procedure it is, tax dollars can pay for it.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Really? Then I suppose we shouldn’t try to cure diabetes, arthritis, malaria, typhoid, cholera or indeed any kind of disease. Isn’t that interfering with MOTHER NATURE?

I guess it all depends on whether you are more interested in the short term good of the individual or the long term good of the human race. The more aides and "crutches" we have the weaker the race becomes. It used to be "survival of the fittest" now it's the survival of damn near everyone. The Bible said that man's years shall be three score and ten and maybe there was a good reason for that- who's to say? Now we are getting people living to four score and ten but they aren't any healthier, just gobble more pills.