Public hospital ban on cosmetic surgery

[Pippi Longstocking]

Yay! It's a jolly good start. :smiliedance: :yelclap:


Cosmetic surgical procedures have been banned in South Australian public hospitals.

Health Minister John Hill says it will free up hospital beds and operating theatres for other patients.

"This is just another example of the activity we are going through to try to make the system work better," he said.

"But I guess there is an ethical issue too.

"Should our public hospitals be involved in doing procedures which are not medically based?"

Mr Hill says the ban includes liposuction, facelifts and circumcision of boys.

He expects some families to be disappointed that they will have to go to a private hospital or clinic for their child's circumcision.

"I think some people will object very strongly and think it is their right to have a free procedure done in a public hospital for cultural reasons," he said.

"Of course there are others who strongly support this procedure being stopped."

[BreakfastatTiffanys]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[KarniF00l]

Oh that's excellent. Lets hope that every other hospital in Australia follow suit. Definitely a start :yelclap:

[Noah_and_Elijah]

I'm all for plastic surgery (not circumcision though!!) but I agree that it shouldn't be in public hospitals. Leave the beds and operating theatres for those who really need them. :)

[LovelyRita]

What about cosmetic procedures on patients that have been in accidents and are disfigured as a result? I would hate to be a public patient and know that my child wouldn't have access to this type of thing if they needed it.

[Noah_and_Elijah]

What about cosmetic procedures on patients that have been in accidents and are disfigured as a result?

That would be a medically based reason and therefore would be undergone in a public hospital.

[shed]

That would be a medically based reason and therefore would be undergone in a public hospital.

Yeah, I am sure this would be under medicare, the same as it is now.

[Myztik]

:yelclap::yelclap:

[~Emmylou~]

:thumbsup: That's awesome!

[SassyMummy]

:thumbsup:

[Angelmist♥]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::smiliedance:

[sam's mum]

I agree. I am all for plastic surgery - I had it on my knee because it was hideous after an accident, but why should public hospitals provide cosmetic surgery. This takes up time and beds that could be used for non cosmetic patients.

[NeilR]

I agree with the decision.
Next I hope they withdraw public hospital services from smokers. It will increase the insurance provision, free up resources and people will realise the full cost of smoking very very quickly.

[Noah_and_Elijah]

NeilR - What about those people who quit smoking when they realised the dangers yet years down the track are suffering from the affects (i.e cancers, tumours, heart disease etc) do we turn our backs on them too?

Genuine question and I'm not a smoker by the way! ;)

[punkbaby]

Thats great :)

[PunkyDiva]

Would stir up a real storm but stopping all unnecessary c/s would not only free up surgeries and beds but save a lot of $$$'s too.

[NeilR]

NeilR - What about those people who quit smoking when they realised the dangers yet years down the track are suffering from the affects (i.e cancers, tumours, heart disease etc) do we turn our backs on them too?

Genuine question and I'm not a smoker by the way! ;)


Are we turning our backs on them? We know for sure the risks of smoking, just as we know the risks of being obese. If we are serious about the rights of minors why do we ignor these aspects of a person's life?
We allow a dangerous drug to get in the hands of our children and some parents actively consume it with their children present. In addition we allow a whole range of foods to be pedaled to our children that we know have little or no nutritional value. Simply put if we follow the dogma of responsibility for decisions of parents etc, in this particular case WRT circumcision, we should also look more closely at those things that we can really prove have significant societal impact on far more children. We could also logically extend this to parenting skills, but the judgement of this is by no means as clear cut.
The other view, which is not an opposing one in some ways, is to legalise nearly all drugs, including 'hard drugs' and then make them affordable. It would take the criminality away and would also change the 'allure of the illicit'...whilst people have to accepts responsibility for their actions.
So yes, them too for a period of 7 years from when they give up the smokes before the age of 35.
There is some evidence to suggest that the effects of smoking CAN be partially reversed if they are given up early enough, but I have no real evidence to support the rest of my view apart from that published by the usual medical sources.
Anyone with a child should not be allowed to smoke and passive smoking by children should be in the criminal law...it will do far more damage than circumcision will ever do.
I think we could put a tax of an additional $10 per packet of smokes and still not recoup the cost of smoking.

[Pippi Longstocking]

NeilR, I think you are opening up a dangerous can of worms there. The difference between elective cosmetic procedures being performed in a hospital and smokers receiving treatment in a hospital is that, no matter the cause, the smokers are actually sick. They have an illness that needs curing, therefore the hospital is a good place for them to go. Little boys with intact healthy penises are not sick and do not need to go to the hospital.

If smokers were refused treatment, where would we draw the line? Should we refuse medical assistance to obese people if their weight problems are self inflicted? What about sports enthusiasts breaking their bones while playing risky sports? People with dangerous hobbies? How do we define who is deserving of medical treatment and who isn't? Whose value judgement do we base this on? Yours? Mine? The Prime Ministers?
I think hospitals should be available to treat all sick people. They shouldn't be used to modify healthy bodies.

[Tam-I-Am]

What about cosmetic procedures on patients that have been in accidents and are disfigured as a result? I would hate to be a public patient and know that my child wouldn't have access to this type of thing if they needed it.

Those sort of procedures aren't classified as cosmetic surgery - but medical surgery. For example, I was offered a rhinoplasty at one stage because I have a very badly deviated septum that in turn has caused my nose to grow crooked (fortunately my whole face is crooked so you can't really tell :p :laughing:) - this procedure would have been wholly funded by Medicare and done in a public hospital because it was medically indicated.

The new guildelines are also not saying that patients can't have circs done in public hospitals - only that unnecessary circs can't be done...Those which are medically indicated will still be offered, I'm sure.


I agree with the decision.
Next I hope they withdraw public hospital services from smokers. It will increase the insurance provision, free up resources and people will realise the full cost of smoking very very quickly.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Given that people don't die of the lack of cosmetic surgery, but certainly do of smoking-related illnesses that are left untreated, and also, that the government continues to profit hand-over-fist from the taxes on the sale of tobacco - It would be negligent in the extreme for the government not to provide healthcare for those suffering smoking-related illnesses. Not to mention that every doctor who turned a patient with a smoking-related illness away would be breaking their Hippocratic Oath. And how on EARTH would one go about determining the acceptance criteria for treatment on a patient with smoking-related illnesses who had only ever been subject to secondary smoke from, say, working in a nightclub? Who on earth would believe them that they'd never been a smoker? And how would it be proven?

You're comparing apples and oranges, I'm afraid....

[Tam-I-Am]

Snap Guv :p :D

[NeilR]

Our health systems consumes 9% of Australia's GDP. Let us assume you are a smoker or are obese: you are a free adult who has responsibility for your own actions, including those that you know have a high risk. My simple question to you is why should the rest of us foot the bill for your risk taking...and the behaviours you pass on to your children?
What I am putting to you is a potentially logical extension to the argument so far espoused by the 'Anti' view on this forum. I would suggest to you in all seriousness that there would be in orders of magnitude difference in the number of children 'harmed' by the following:

Poor parenting
drug use
obesity
car accident

should we not also focus on these areas as well as we know it will have a greater impact on society and a greater number of children.

[subaruforestermum]

I think cosmetic surgery is a choice made, whereas being ill is not a choice, no matter what previous choices led to us becoming sick. It was not our goal in life was to make some bad descions and get sick and have to have medical intervention.

I think its a step in the right direction to free u much needed funds and beds in public hospitals!

[serendipity22]

I don't think its appropriate for elective cosmetic surgery in any form to be supported by the public health system.

Non clinical circumcision is not supported in any state in Australia apart from the Northern Territory (which only has a rate of about 2% anyway). SA was the last large state to drop circ.

[~Mands~]

I just wanted to say Im from SA and heard this when it was announced, and I think it is fantastic! Fingers crossed it will mean some possible future circumcisions are prevented too :fingerscrossed: .

M.