Nanny can't resist a bit of social engineering, and in keeping with her campaign against all things fat she has drawn up recommendations that further ostracise the fat community.Nanny's chums in The British Fertility Society (BFS) have decreed that free IVF treatment should be limited to those who are of a healthy weight, ie fat women will not be given IVF treatment.
BFS chairman, Dr Mark Hamilton, said that women who were clinically overweight faced safety risks and should make an effort to get fit for pregnancy.
The guidelines say women who have already embarked on a weight loss programme should be considered for treatment.
The question is, what constitutes fat?
Doctors have been using body mass index (BMI) as a measure of fatness, yet according to some the BMI is in fact bollocks; eg a fit rugby player will come in at over 30 on the BMI, yet Nanny's doctors say that 20-25 is the "correct" BMI.
Current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NHS 'value for money' watchdog, say that patients should 'ideally' have a BMI of between 19 and 30, with no absolute upper limit for treatment.
Oddly enough Nanny's other bane of her life, smokers, would not be excluded from treatment, but would be given advice on quitting.
A tad hypocritical, given the fact that Nanny tells us that smoking is the most evil thing that you inflict upon yourself and others.
The bottom line is this, when governments try to social engineer society they always cock it up.
This ban is just a nasty way of trying to save money, other "savings" will be sought in the future; whereby fat people, smokers, drinkers, wankers etc will be denied treatment in the interests of "saving" money. After all, if you are a non smoker, non drinker and not a fat person you are alright aren't you?
Nanny is avoiding the real issue here, namely how do we fund an NHS that seeks to satisfy an ever increasing demand for its services?
Answer: WE CAN'T.
There has to be a debate about what services the NHS can actually provide to everyone (fat people, smokers and wankers etc), and how much we are able to pay for them.
Nanny of course likes to avoid painful questions, and instead enjoys lecturing us on our lifestyles.
I agree with you about the debate of NHS services and their affordability. A number of the more expensive services, presumably available because they 'can be done', offer very debatable benefits to society as a whole and cost a disproportionate amount.
ReplyDeleteYet they are seen as some sort of "right" to have by many people.
As for fat people, there are some horrendous sights around in the wild these days and, it seems to me, far fewer 'attractive' ones.
Perhaps this is just the result of changes in the way that people dress. It seems that displaying a large uncovered gut is now acceptable for men as well as women. Quite why women shaped like rugby balls wish to display an expansive midriff above tightly fitting size 22 jeans I have no idea. Perhaps I have missed out on the most recent fads and sexual deviations.
But, back on topic, the services available 'free' on the NHS need to be carefully assessed (which will always cause howls of disagreement no matter what selection process is followed) and have some sort of paid for content if of a physical nature unconnected with an individual's physical health.
Of course that would mean that the health professionals would attempt to move the IVF option into a mental health arena. Given the cost and concerns and potential problems that kids present a few years down the line I guess one has to be mentally deficient to want them so it probably fits well ...
(takes tongue a little way out of cheek ...)
EmmaThompson said...
ReplyDelete"Perhaps infertility is natures way of telling us there are too many people on the planet? ( cue women claiming it's their 'human right' to have a child....) "
Or perhaps simply that there are good genetic reasons for terminating that particular genetic line, whether the male or female side or for both sides.
One might say that Dogs, cats and a number of other creatures that humans interfere with have similar rights (I don't but one might).
How many people who demand IVF treatment deny their pets the same opportunities to reproduce?
Would this not expose some degree of hypocrisy?
Perhaps we could get a comment from the RSPCA ...
I seem to recall from year ago that there are some well founded grounds for tis sort of decision on the basis that many overwieght women are unable to conceive because their body is not functioning as it normally would.
One would have thought that the potential benefits of weight loss as a first approach to resolving the problem and satisfying their motherly desires (presumaing they are in a heterosexual stable relationship, etc, etc, ) would clearly suggest that IVF would be inappropriate under such circumstances, if only because their inability or unwillingness to respond would be very likely to further the "explosion" of the obesity "epidemic" by creating fat kids, made from the same DNA model and attitudes.
No one is entitled to a child...
DeleteFREE IVF services!!! I need to move over to that side of the atlantic.
ReplyDeletemy wife and I are going through this now and by far the hardest part is getting financing to be able to cover the ~$15,000 per round of IVF.
So, all in all, denying free IVF to some people is a start. Maybe in a few years, they can get the whole population on that list, and.....problem solved.
I agree with you.
ReplyDelete