Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
So you are comparing anesthesia to IVF
|
Anesthesia is purely a patient comfort issue (and you wont find me arguing against it), not a survivability one. Millions of people around the world receive medically necessary treatment without the benefit of anesthesia and manage to survive.
Therefore if one wants to run solely on the plank of funding only that which is 'medically necessary' anesthesia should be removed from funding.
I am just curious how the pain of an infertile couple is considered less 'real' than the pain of a surgery patient. Is it just because it is a pain someone has not experienced?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
No one needs kids so much so that a PUBLICLY funded health care plan should cover it. I dont care how good those parents would be or how much their life would improve by having their own kid.
|
You are right.
Fiscally however, there is a large benefit to society from funding IVF. Plus, for some of us, allowing others to experience they joy of raising their own kids might be reward enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
You have small breasts and want larger ones, go the plastic surgeon.
You have a huge nose and want a smaller one, go to the plastic surgeon.
You want your own biological children and cant have them naturally go to a reproductive clinic.
|
Your child has cleft palate, should corrective surgery be funded?
Your retired father needs a hip replaced, should he be funded?
Should an immigrant to the country receive a free polio inoculation?
Our medical system, at the behest of the taxpayers, has long moved away from paying only for urgent medical needs.
Most of us are pretty happy with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
- wow, I guess some are just laughably blinded by self interest.
|
Indeed.