Gender re-assignment

[Cannuck]

The cost of this procedure is insignificant. I have a buddy that had a kidney transplant. On top of the cost of the actual surgery, we pay $10,000/year for drugs and will do so for the rest of his life. Our technology is allowing us to do more and more however this technology isn't free. Today there are heart defibrillators everywhere and more and more people are surviving heart attacks. It doesn't cost anything to treat a person that is dead from kidney or heart failure. Give them a new heart or kidney and half a million price tag isn't out of the question.

The public needs to make a decision and it doesn't really matter whether they are Canadian (public system) or American (private system). We either withhold lifesaving technology from people because it is too expensive or we foot the bill. Focusing on gender reassignment is akin to complaining that the stereo doesn't work as the car rolls off the cliff.

 

[Kreskin]

My mom has been in the hospital with kidney problems since Christmas day. She's 90 years old. Do the math on that one. Is that a good use of taxpayers money?

 

[Cannuck]

Is that a good use of taxpayers money?

If she wants it that way, it has to be. The alternative is to not give some types of life saving care or to assign a value to each life and pull the plug (so to speak) when the value has been exceeded.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

When did we start calling the procedure "gender re-assignment"? When I first heard some talking head on the radio the other day spouting this new buzzword I shook my head in wonder. Pick a word for chrissake and stick with it. What was wrong with sex-change operation? It has the same amount of syllables, it's more to the point and it doesn't confuse the listener. Gender re-assignment...it's like your genitals landed a new job or a new posting overseas. "Well Johnson, you've been re-assigned to the Greek island of Lesbos. You can take one bag with you. Your temporary replacement will be Vaginia"

 

[Kreskin]

If she wants it that way, it has to be. The alternative is to not give some types of life saving care or to assign a value to each life and pull the plug (so to speak) when the value has been exceeded.

That's right. Her treatment (including three surgeries) will never return anything to taxpayers. She will be a highcost taxpayer-burden for the rest of her shortened life. Paid in part by those being denied use of the same healthplan for their needs. Our healthcare system isn't all about dollars and cents. It's about access without barriers.

 

[gerryh]

our healthcare system should take care of everyone....... it should matter not if it's a 90 year old woman, or someone that NEEDS gender reasignment. You can NOT put a dollar amount on someones physical or mental health.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You can NOT put a dollar amount...

Exactly right, in my view, and good for you gerryh for putting it so succinctly. As I said, it's elementary morality: if you can help, then you help. Unfortunately, sometimes we can't help, we may not have the resources, or the knowledge, to truly fix something. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Nobody should be denied help because their problem is bizarre, rare, or expensive and difficult to deal with. The OP seemed to me to be suggesting otherwise, and it seriously annoyed me.

 

[JLM]

When did we start calling the procedure "gender re-assignment"? When I first heard some talking head on the radio the other day spouting this new buzzword I shook my head in wonder. Pick a word for chrissake and stick with it. What was wrong with sex-change operation? It has the same amount of syllables, it's more to the point and it doesn't confuse the listener. Gender re-assignment...it's like your genitals landed a new job or a new posting overseas. "Well Johnson, you've been re-assigned to the Greek island of Lesbos. You can take one bag with you. Your temporary replacement will be Vaginia"

Gender is the proper word when talking male vs. female, sex is what the two of them do. "Reassignment" does sound a little obstentatious, how about "gender alteration"?

 

[JLM]

our healthcare system should take care of everyone....... it should matter not if it's a 90 year old woman, or someone that NEEDS gender reasignment. You can NOT put a dollar amount on someones physical or mental health.

I think the state of Oregon has a more workable plan, they have a list of what's treatable for the public dime, so you can refer to it ahead of time to know whether you qualify or not- no last minute surprises. Last I heard there was over 700 ailments on the list. The way things are going in Canada now (like people eating themselves into obesity and not exercising) the day is not far off when the money simply WON'T be there to treat everyone. Maybe it's time to start denying free treatment to people over 65 (when they are a burden on the public purse already) Old codgers like myself are probably never going to work again anyhow and even if we do we are a drag on the tax system anyway in that we get special breaks for being over 65. Or maybe there's another solution, since old codgers are not so much of a minority anymore maybe it's time to up the age for pensions and freebies to 80. Time to get realistic.

 

[Cannuck]

The way things are going in Canada now (like people eating themselves into obesity and not exercising) the day is not far off when the money simply WON'T be there to treat everyone.

The money will be there if we want it to be. We just have to decide if we want it to be. Then (if we decide we want it to be) we have to decide what we will do without in order to make the funds available.

 

[CanadianLove]

I'm getting tired of the gender re-assignment debate, of whether taxpayers should be on the hook for them.

This goes beyond the taxpayers also. I heard of a situation in one of the mills I visit with work, about a man who decided to have breast large implants, I say large as men can get small ones to look like they work out and have pecks.

The mill had to send all the managers (100+) to sensitivity training to learn how to deal with the issue. They had to build him his own washroom, shower, and changroom facilities. The women in the mill did not want him in their facilities because he elected to keep his penis.

I just shook my head when I heard that one.

 

[JLM]

The money will be there if we want it to be. We just have to decide if we want it to be. Then (if we decide we want it to be) we have to decide what we will do without in order to make the funds available.

Well maybe if they fire up the mint in Ottawa for an extra couple of hours a day.:lol:

 

[JLM]

This goes beyond the taxpayers also. I heard of a situation in one of the mills I visit with work, about a man who decided to have breast large implants, I say large as men can get small ones to look like they work out and have pecks.

The mill had to send all the managers (100+) to sensitivity training to learn how to deal with the issue. They had to build him his own washroom, shower, and changroom facilities. The women in the mill did not want him in their facilities because he elected to keep his penis.

I just shook my head when I heard that one.

Yep. THAT is a little beyond the pale.

 

[captain morgan]

I was thinking of user fees a while ago. People may not be so anxious to go to the ER over a case of sniffles if they had to fork over a $20 for the privilege.

I don't think that you'd even need to set the rate at $20. % bucks would be enough to eliminate those folks that have a fever, think they have the flu and waddle on down to the clinic (or emergency if more convenient) to confirm their suspicions and get the same advice that their mother told 'em for years and years.

 

[captain morgan]

It's the GRS's money too. Many forget that. He/she is paying for everyone elses medical treatments (and treatments of their kids) when they won't have a family of their own. Yet they can't get their own medical treatment. Nothing fair about that.

Everyone pays money into the system and everyone uses the services. I'd wager that those that seek the GSR surgery benefit on a much larger scale from the system more than the average taxpayer when one considers the potential for receiving therapy, drugs/hormones (fully paid or subsidized), pre and post operative therapy, follow-up care, let alone the actual surgery.

As one other poster pointed-out, the need for the surgery is based on a 'feeling' held by the recipient... There are many in society that 'feel' they need changes in their lives where the medical system can offer this solution, yet, society requires that they foot the bill on their own. These people also pay into the system for the benefit of others as well.

Why fund one, but not the other?

 

[Kreskin]

Everyone pays money into the system and everyone uses the services. I'd wager that those that seek the GSR surgery benefit on a much larger scale from the system more than the average taxpayer when one considers the potential for receiving therapy, drugs/hormones (fully paid or subsidized), pre and post operative therapy, follow-up care, let alone the actual surgery.

As one other poster pointed-out, the need for the surgery is based on a 'feeling' held by the recipient... There are many in society that 'feel' they need changes in their lives where the medical system can offer this solution, yet, society requires that they foot the bill on their own. These people also pay into the system for the benefit of others as well.

Why fund one, but not the other?

It's more than a feeling, it's a thorough psychiatric assessment. If they did pay for it on their own everyone will pay for post-operative care anyway. And If you're going to deny them treatment then why even bother offering them a diagnosis? Our system will fund an evaluation of just about any medical issue but stop short of actually treating some people.

I keep referring back to IVF because I know it better and it has the same funding issues. Publicly funded you can see gp's, urologists, ob/gyns, geneticists, endocrinologists etc who will make full use of all diagnostic services and technologies to determine a medical cause and treatment plan for infertility. Then they cut you loose until you've paid for your treatment and bring you back into public funding immediately after. Because people have to pay out of pocket for the treatment they'll push for protocols that are high risk of multiples in order to get pthe most bang for their buck. These people end up in NICU with twins, triplets and quads that cost the taxpayers considerably more money that the treatments. The process neither makes moral or financial sense. Many countries already fund the treatments. That way they can better control the outcomes.

As for GRS candidates, they apparently are at high risk of suicide attempts. Is it a better use of taxpayer money to have them in and out ER's?

I believe attempts to cut corners on this stuff comes back as a cost in other ways. And if this is only going to be about the money then people who can't have kids and are denied treatment for their condition should not be expected to help subsidize schools, Ministries of Family and Children, healthcare services for minors or any other program that they can't and never will benefit from. Then everyone will be on the user-pay system and be charged accordingly for their real expense to society.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

Gender is the proper word when talking male vs. female, sex is what the two of them do. "Reassignment" does sound a little obstentatious, how about "gender alteration"?

Sounds like you're hemming a pair of pants.

Gender re-configuration perhaps? More syllables yes, but it's more analogous with rebooting your hard drive and installing a different operating system.

As for the taxpayer funding these procedures, no problem here, as long as the surgeon is not taken away from a patient who needs immediate attention in a life or death situation.

 

[captain morgan]

It's more than a feeling, it's a thorough psychiatric assessment. If they did pay for it on their own everyone will pay for post-operative care anyway. And If you're going to deny them treatment then why even bother offering them a diagnosis? Our system will fund an evaluation of just about any medical issue but stop short of actually treating some people.

First off, I don't want it to be interpreted that i am marginalizing transgendered folks, that is not my intent. However, the very same psychiatrist that analyses the GSR candidate can see an overweight woman who claims that there is a beautiful thin woman screaming to get out. The fact is, the existing system is for medically necessary procedures. GSR surgery is not considered medically necessary.. You can't point to a broken knee, a cancerous tumour or a ruptured spleen. Regardless of the psychiatrist's diagnosis, it is still an ailment that exists in the mind of the patient.

You have mentioned that GSR surgeries are being denied to those that want it... Nothing is farther from the truth. The procedure is available to anyone that wants it.. All they have to do is pony-up the cash... For someone (ie GSR recipient) that sees this as life-or-death situation, I am absolutely floored by the notion that they don't see it as important enough to pay their own way.

In terms of the overlap between public and private servives, i fully agree and would suggest that as the healthcare system experiences further economic stresses, you may see those services vanish entirely. Regardless, the example of GSR also exemplifies the current circumstance and would likely do so even if the patient had to foot the bill themselves.

As for GRS candidates, they apparently are at high risk of suicide attempts. Is it a better use of taxpayer money to have them in and out ER's?

To start, there is no certainity that the GSR surgery will 'solve' the patients problem. In reading various articles about this (it's been in the news lately), there have been frequent reference to the notion that there is a reasonably high chance that the GSR recipient won't necessarily believe (after tthe fact) that the surgery successfully addressed their psycological issues.

The suicde issue is obviously a heart-wrenching circumstance, however, transgender persons do not have a lock on suicidal tendencies. To employ your logic in that realm, you have made the case that anyone with an individual and subjective psycological issue should receive surgery...

If those that absolutely believe that they need GSR surgery believe it, the issue of gvt paying would be far down on the list on importance and they would either work for a period of time to get the $$ together (the lobby suggests that the surgery is about 35K - that is not 100's of thousands) or seek the help from friends or family.

Sorry, but it is a hard pill to swallow in believing that it is extremely important to them, but not pressing enough to come up with the money.

 

[Kreskin]

Then any pregnancy-related service, eg hospital delivery, should be ponied up. It wouldn't be denied just delisted.

I don't pretend to fully understand GRS, but have been on the wrong side of private treatment funding and know that most people didn't understand the issuel. I will grant the GRS crowd the same latitude. I doubt there are many transgendered physicians on the board making funding decisions who understand it either.

 

[captain morgan]

Pregnancy IS covered by the system. Further, there is significant opportunity for serious health ramifications related to the birthing event.

Suggesting some form of discrimination at the board level simply because there are no transgendered physicians (that we know of) is a non-starter. Chances are that there are many of those same board members that might want cosmetic surgery or a hair transplant yet those services aren't approved.