I apologise for my comment But I dont understand (genuinely) why anyone would want to be physically disabled or hurt themselves so they are. Doesnt this give disabled people (either through birth or injury suffered when older) a bad name, if she can get up and walk when she wants?
Reminds me of Lou and Andy only it isnt funny Very sad
It is very sad, people with genuine disabilities would grab even the smallest glimmer of hope with excitement if it meant an end to their disabilities.
..as for transgender then why bring that in to the debate
Because I believe it's basically the same thing. As has been said in this thread, the woman *IS* disabled in her eyes, it's just that she doesn't have the body to match.
As I understand it, the conditions for being accepted for transgender surgery are quite stringent - I think you have to live as the opposite sex for at least a year if memory serves. If this woman undergoes similarly stringent conditions and assessments and it is deemed that she is indeed suffering from this disorder, as it appears, then maybe she should receive consent for the operation to take place.
If she has consent from suitably qualified people then it should be left up to the surgeons if they wish to carry it out or not. I would have thought it would be a better option than running the risk of her potentially mutilating herself or putting herself at risk by trying to get into accidents (as she already has done ..).
Quote from the article: "The operation, which would have cost £16,000, was too expensive for the Cambridge graduate."
So has she actually found someone willing to do this but the cost is too high? :eek:
Cannot see anyone agreeing to do it to be honest, way too much bad publicity surrounding the issue, its against the principles of the hippocritic oath for starters.
Cannot see anyone agreeing to do it to be honest, way too much bad publicity surrounding the issue, its against the principles of the hippocritic oath for starters.
The doctor who is prepared to do this may consider it to be the lesser of two harms and therefore not in breach of her/his oath.
Because I believe it's basically the same thing. As has been said in this thread, the woman *IS* disabled in her eyes, it's just that she doesn't have the body to match.
As I understand it, the conditions for being accepted for transgender surgery are quite stringent - I think you have to live as the opposite sex for at least a year if memory serves. If this woman undergoes similarly stringent conditions and assessments and it is deemed that she is indeed suffering from this disorder, as it appears, then maybe she should receive consent for the operation to take place.
If she has consent from suitably qualified people then it should be left up to the surgeons if they wish to carry it out or not. I would have thought it would be a better option than running the risk of her potentially mutilating herself or putting herself at risk by trying to get into accidents (as she already has done ..).
I understand your point but where will it end, what if she then decides she cannot live with the disability and demands euthanasia? It's a slippery slope.
As a nurse its my duty to help preserve and maintain the health and well being of patients in my care, I accept that euthanasia has to be allowed to exist as a form of end of life care for those with terminal illness or disabilities who have the mental capacity to decide on such measures. I would refuse to participate in the treatment and aftercare of a patient with issues similar to the female in question.
If she has consent from suitably qualified people then it should be left up to the surgeons if they wish to carry it out or not. I would have thought it would be a better option than running the risk of her potentially mutilating herself or putting herself at risk by trying to get into accidents (as she already has done ..).
May I ask who you think the suitably qualified people are that she needs to get consent from?
In theory, leaving it up to the surgeon sounds like a good, practicable idea.
However, the paternalistic approach to medicine is now a thing of the past. It used to be that the doctor knows best, but now, the patient's autonomy is of paramount importance.
Whether she has autonomy is questionable. The whole idea of her having the capacity to consent to the treatment is questionable.
OMG the poor woman. What a terrible condition. I just can't get my brain round it. I hope she gets the right sort of help and it is effective so she can be whole and enjoy her wholeness.
I understand your point but where will it end, what if she then decides she cannot live with the disability and demands euthanasia? It's a slippery slope
I certainly do agree. I've read of some cases where some transgender patients have actually changed their minds, even after extensive assessment, so in that respect I do think it's possible this could happen here.
But I think she shouldn't be left to suffer if this condition is genuine and real. Maybe the middle ground could be a drug related solution ?. Something that gives her what she wants but is reversable should she ever recover from the disorder.
Oh yeah because clearly this is the best way to get some attention. It's not that she is obviously rather ill or anything.
Honestly, do people really think people do this stuff just for a bit of attention?
Apparently so, yes. It must be a form of pain for her, she's clearly in distress so should be treated for it but I'd hope there'd be some sort of middle ground option available, as JasonWatkins suggests.
When it comes to doctors and their principles, I wonder how it works if it can be proven that she's really distressed and miserable because of how she feels - if doctors and nurses vow to improve patients health and mainly/namely quality of life, how can they not help her?. Obviously being physically disabled would make one part of her life much more difficult and cause many issues but equally, can it be argued that she has a low quality of life at the moment because she's permanently feeling like something is wrong, feeling very depressed and miserable and constantly wanting to change things? if she wants to cause accidents to fix her perceived defects and put herself potentially in danger of going too far and committing suicide, that could potentially put other people in danger, so I think there are alot of things to bare in mind.
People can look and seem perfectly fine but feel miserable and not enjoy life much at all, I know that much. If that means they have a bad quality of life then surely its their doctors duty to address that?.
Quote from the article: "The operation, which would have cost £16,000, was too expensive for the Cambridge graduate."
So has she actually found someone willing to do this but the cost is too high? :eek:
What I don't get about that is if the operation would have cost too much then how could she possibly afford all the related care costs that would come into play once she were to be paralysed? especially if she's American, where there's no NHS. Presumably she'd need to employ carers, have motorised wheelchairs (which aren't entirely cheap) and whatever else. It seems rather short sighted if she hadn't thought that much through(!).
Because I believe it's basically the same thing. As has been said in this thread, the woman *IS* disabled in her eyes, it's just that she doesn't have the body to match.
I wonder if it has occurred to her that becoming paraplegic doesn't just mean her legs won't work. She'll have no bladder or bowel control either, and be at risk of pressure sores, amongst other health problems.
Interesting. I saw the pictures of her in her climbing gear but I didn't realise it was as recent as last year. Obviously to play devils advocaat, she might have gotten worse since then and retreated to her chair completely, but it does seem rather dodgy that she wants this procedure done while, on the face of it, being an active climber.
In the same way you wouldn't give someone suffering from anorexia a gastric band if they asked for one, this woman should not be given what she wants. Instead she should be given psychiatric treatment for mental illness.
Not at all - throwing herself under a bus in order to become paraplegic would mean we all support her (at HUGE expense) for the rest of her life. Hoping she dies instead if she tried it, costing us very little, seems a perfectly reasonable preference.
From a personal point of view, assuming I was in a severe accident, I would far sooner be dead than paraplegic (as I suspect most people would?).
This woman can have my mum's MS if she likes. She has no use of her legs, Bowels or bladder, spends her waking hours in a wheelchair and has limited use of her hands now... and sleeping hours unable to move in her hospital style bed unless using a hoist or my poor dad who does all her caring...
Don't think she'll find it as appealing as she thinks...
I know all about it being a medical professional, my personal take is that its time we stopped pandering to their desires to maim their bodies, cut limbs off ect.
After the scandal a few years ago regarding two patients who had limbs removed at I believe Falkirk infirmary who had similar issues I'm happy that no NHS clinician here in the UK will ever consider such treatment.
Any clinician that is accepting of such uneccessary treatments for those with dismorphic issues should not be allowed to practice.
I am not sure where anyone said that clinicians who provide unnecessary treatments to those with dismorphic issues should be allowed to practice, or anything like that.
I was merely responding to your post that stated:
Why is everything deemed mental illness these days?
Time people stopped pandering to these idiots.
This clearly is a mental illness. There is no question there, in my opinion. Nothing to do with 'everything being deemed a mental illness'. As for pandering to them, who is pandering? It seems no one is willing to do the operation and as you say yourself, certainly no NHS clinician would (hopefully) be willing to carry out the procedure just on her request. This would be the same as an anorexic person being helped to starve themselves or a self harmer being assisted to harm themselves.
Nice use of the word idiot, by the way. From one medical professional to another, a bit of empathy would not go amiss here.
I apologise for my comment But I dont understand (genuinely) why anyone would want to be physically disabled or hurt themselves so they are. Doesnt this give disabled people (either through birth or injury suffered when older) a bad name, if she can get up and walk when she wants?
Reminds me of Lou and Andy only it isnt funny Very sad
Why would it give genuinely disabled people a bad name?
Not at all - throwing herself under a bus in order to become paraplegic would mean we all support her (at HUGE expense) for the rest of her life. Hoping she dies instead if she tried it, costing us very little, seems a perfectly reasonable preference.
From a personal point of view, assuming I was in a severe accident, I would far sooner be dead than paraplegic (as I suspect most people would?).
Comments
It is very sad, people with genuine disabilities would grab even the smallest glimmer of hope with excitement if it meant an end to their disabilities.
Because I believe it's basically the same thing. As has been said in this thread, the woman *IS* disabled in her eyes, it's just that she doesn't have the body to match.
As I understand it, the conditions for being accepted for transgender surgery are quite stringent - I think you have to live as the opposite sex for at least a year if memory serves. If this woman undergoes similarly stringent conditions and assessments and it is deemed that she is indeed suffering from this disorder, as it appears, then maybe she should receive consent for the operation to take place.
If she has consent from suitably qualified people then it should be left up to the surgeons if they wish to carry it out or not. I would have thought it would be a better option than running the risk of her potentially mutilating herself or putting herself at risk by trying to get into accidents (as she already has done ..).
Cannot see anyone agreeing to do it to be honest, way too much bad publicity surrounding the issue, its against the principles of the hippocritic oath for starters.
The doctor who is prepared to do this may consider it to be the lesser of two harms and therefore not in breach of her/his oath.
I understand your point but where will it end, what if she then decides she cannot live with the disability and demands euthanasia? It's a slippery slope.
As a nurse its my duty to help preserve and maintain the health and well being of patients in my care, I accept that euthanasia has to be allowed to exist as a form of end of life care for those with terminal illness or disabilities who have the mental capacity to decide on such measures. I would refuse to participate in the treatment and aftercare of a patient with issues similar to the female in question.
May I ask who you think the suitably qualified people are that she needs to get consent from?
In theory, leaving it up to the surgeon sounds like a good, practicable idea.
However, the paternalistic approach to medicine is now a thing of the past. It used to be that the doctor knows best, but now, the patient's autonomy is of paramount importance.
Whether she has autonomy is questionable. The whole idea of her having the capacity to consent to the treatment is questionable.
I certainly do agree. I've read of some cases where some transgender patients have actually changed their minds, even after extensive assessment, so in that respect I do think it's possible this could happen here.
But I think she shouldn't be left to suffer if this condition is genuine and real. Maybe the middle ground could be a drug related solution ?. Something that gives her what she wants but is reversable should she ever recover from the disorder.
Psychiatrists, mental health specialists - anyone qualified in diagnosing and assessing mental health disorders.
Apparently so, yes. It must be a form of pain for her, she's clearly in distress so should be treated for it but I'd hope there'd be some sort of middle ground option available, as JasonWatkins suggests.
When it comes to doctors and their principles, I wonder how it works if it can be proven that she's really distressed and miserable because of how she feels - if doctors and nurses vow to improve patients health and mainly/namely quality of life, how can they not help her?. Obviously being physically disabled would make one part of her life much more difficult and cause many issues but equally, can it be argued that she has a low quality of life at the moment because she's permanently feeling like something is wrong, feeling very depressed and miserable and constantly wanting to change things? if she wants to cause accidents to fix her perceived defects and put herself potentially in danger of going too far and committing suicide, that could potentially put other people in danger, so I think there are alot of things to bare in mind.
People can look and seem perfectly fine but feel miserable and not enjoy life much at all, I know that much. If that means they have a bad quality of life then surely its their doctors duty to address that?.
What I don't get about that is if the operation would have cost too much then how could she possibly afford all the related care costs that would come into play once she were to be paralysed? especially if she's American, where there's no NHS. Presumably she'd need to employ carers, have motorised wheelchairs (which aren't entirely cheap) and whatever else. It seems rather short sighted if she hadn't thought that much through(!).
Interesting. I saw the pictures of her in her climbing gear but I didn't realise it was as recent as last year. Obviously to play devils advocaat, she might have gotten worse since then and retreated to her chair completely, but it does seem rather dodgy that she wants this procedure done while, on the face of it, being an active climber.
Interesting, I didnt know any of that. Surely she knows she won't be able to do what she loves (being a climber) if she's paraplegic?
Not at all - throwing herself under a bus in order to become paraplegic would mean we all support her (at HUGE expense) for the rest of her life. Hoping she dies instead if she tried it, costing us very little, seems a perfectly reasonable preference.
From a personal point of view, assuming I was in a severe accident, I would far sooner be dead than paraplegic (as I suspect most people would?).
Don't think she'll find it as appealing as she thinks...
I am not sure where anyone said that clinicians who provide unnecessary treatments to those with dismorphic issues should be allowed to practice, or anything like that.
I was merely responding to your post that stated:
This clearly is a mental illness. There is no question there, in my opinion. Nothing to do with 'everything being deemed a mental illness'. As for pandering to them, who is pandering? It seems no one is willing to do the operation and as you say yourself, certainly no NHS clinician would (hopefully) be willing to carry out the procedure just on her request. This would be the same as an anorexic person being helped to starve themselves or a self harmer being assisted to harm themselves.
Nice use of the word idiot, by the way. From one medical professional to another, a bit of empathy would not go amiss here.
Why would it give genuinely disabled people a bad name?
She lives in the U.S.A.
So, same principle - she won't be able to care for herself and others will have to pay for her.
Why does that not surprise me?
I don't know, why does it not?
Are you under some kind of impression that the only people who feel the way she does are from the USA?
What do you mean so? You said we were paying for her. I told you she doesn't live in the UK.