Nope, if you're daft enough to have the sort of tattoo that could put you at a disadvantage when it comes to getting work, you should be prepared to either live with the consequences, or pay to get it removed yourself.
This attitude appears to come from a moral judgement that calls for punishment, rather than a long term picture of what's best for the patient and financially best for the country.
People choose to do a lot of things. If it later results in a medical need for treatment, we should permit that treatment on its medical merits rather than judgement of people's decisions. Much the same as we treat skiers broken arms etc.
If you break your arm when you go skiing, breaking your arm was not the sole objective of going skiing. It was an accidental byproduct of you choosing to go skiing.
If you get a tattoo, your sole purpose in getting a tattoo was to be tattooed. Having a tattoo is not an accidental byproduct of you going and sitting in a tattooist's chair and voluntarily giving him or her your cash to tattoo you with a design that you have chosen for yourself.
So, no, I don't see how those two things are comparable.
Millions of people go skiing; they don't all break their arms.
Millions of people get tattooed; every one of them has a tattoo.
If you break your arm when you go skiing, breaking your arm was not the sole objective of going skiing. It was an accidental byproduct of you choosing to go skiing.
If you get a tattoo, your sole purpose in getting a tattoo was to be tattooed. Having a tattoo is not an accidental byproduct of you going and sitting in a tattooist's chair and voluntarily giving him or her your cash to tattoo you with a design that you have chosen for yourself.
So, no, I don't see how those two things are comparable.
Millions of people go skiing; they don't all break their arms.
Millions of people get tattooed; every one of them has a tattoo.
It's a predictable consequence though.
If a person changes after getting a tattoo and the tattoo causes them psychological distress, the distress was never the intention, but an accidental by product, same as with the skier's broken arm.
Am happy to agree to disagree though. Both sides have presented their arguments and if neither want to change their opinion, well that is all of our rights.
Someone way have had a tattoo tying them to a political group whose ideologies they no longer agree with, perhaps a swastika. I can easily image having that permanently on your body could cause extreme emotional distress, which could impact on their mental health, and ability to take part in like fully. If we can treat this and save thousands of pounds in psychological treatments and related problems like periods of unemployment and sickness, it makes economical sense for the NHS to remove the tattoo.
I can think of other examples.
And why should it be done free? Like I said in my original posting why should free treatment be given for a botched lifestyle choice? As I believe someone else posted no-one forced this person into having the body decoration nor was it an accidental by-product of something they were doing. And how can you determine the effect of the tattoo on their mental health? Sorry not buying.
I think this is going to be a major issue in 20-30 years time. They are going to look stupid on wrinkly old skin, then you'll have all these OAPs wanting rid of their tattoos.
And why should it be done free? Like I said in my original posting why should free treatment be given for a botched lifestyle choice? As I believe someone else posted no-one forced this person into having the body decoration nor was it an accidental by-product of something they were doing. And how can you determine the effect of the tattoo on their mental health? Sorry not buying.
It should be free the same as other things on the NHS that are the result of people's choice but negatively affecting them all the same.
No, this won't happen. If there's a sudden surge in people wanting their tramp stamps removed, there's no reason why the country should pay for it. Your body, your choice and your bill.
I suppose we will have to see in decades to come whether people who have them are still happy with them. Especially as tattoos degrade and blur after time. Tattoos done relatively recently seem nice to look at.
If you break your arm when you go skiing, breaking your arm was not the sole objective of going skiing. It was an accidental byproduct of you choosing to go skiing.
If you get a tattoo, your sole purpose in getting a tattoo was to be tattooed. Having a tattoo is not an accidental byproduct of you going and sitting in a tattooist's chair and voluntarily giving him or her your cash to tattoo you with a design that you have chosen for yourself.
So, no, I don't see how those two things are comparable.
Millions of people go skiing; they don't all break their arms.
Millions of people get tattooed; every one of them has a tattoo.
They pay to get a tattoo so they should pay to have it removed, not the NHS which is there for people who really need help, not those who have chosen to have a tattoo, maybe on a whim, then decide later they wish they had not.
That is their problem not the NHS.
If people are stupid enough to be tattooed then let them pay for the removal when they realise their own stupidity. They may think twice before again making a decision to mutilate their bodies with indelible ink.
If a person changes after getting a tattoo and the tattoo causes them psychological distress, the distress was never the intention, but an accidental by product.
What do you mean, a person changes after getting a tattoo, in what respect. Psychological distress what is that, in relation to having a tattoo. Surely to goodness they knew before hand how the tattoo would look.
No. Anything that is put on the body willingly is up to the individual to cough up for removal. I have tattoos, one the tattooist balls up slightly (I think) but I will be paying for the removal.
Neither do I agree with breast enlargements or gastric bands.
well partly that's an addiction. But yeah really the nhs shouldn't have to mop up after people for not controlling their alcohol intake. In other countries, they'd pay a higher insurance for that I'm sure.
You don't drink a pint of beer thinking 'oh I'm going to become an alcoholic now and I won't be able to change that and it's my choice'.
Whereas you get a tattoo thinking: 'I'm going to have this tattoo permanently on my body and I won't be able to change that and it's my choice.
VASTLY different things. And the vast majority of people that have a drink don't have a problem, whereaa EVERY single one who gets a tattoo done, has a tattoo. And whether that's a problem or not is some personal regret, not the total dissolution of their mind and body.
Hell to the No! I have two myself, and the thought of me getting rid of them (not that I want to) and it costing the NHS money is a no no. Especially when you have people on waiting lists for this and that and people needing cancer treatment! Its a choice I made, and if one day I dont like what Ive done, then its down to me to fix it.
Nope, unless you were tattooed against your will by a slave trader, you chose to get a tattoo, if you don't like it now and want it removed, you can pay for it.
I totally agree with this post. I would also add that if you want a nose or boob job or a gastric band (except in extreme circumstances) then you should pay for it yourself.
When the NHS claim not to have the money to treat people who have actual conditions/illnesses (such as mollipop's husband above ^^) then they really shouldn't be wasting money on people wanting cosmetic treatments that they should fund themselves.
I don't agree that having tats should be a hindrance to finding employment, but that's how it is at the moment, so if people get tattoos in visible areas to the public then they get them at their own peril.
I want to get a tattoo which could be considered offensive (I think it's sexy to be honest) but I have no intention of getting it done on my lower arms or my face.
Comments
This attitude appears to come from a moral judgement that calls for punishment, rather than a long term picture of what's best for the patient and financially best for the country.
If you break your arm when you go skiing, breaking your arm was not the sole objective of going skiing. It was an accidental byproduct of you choosing to go skiing.
If you get a tattoo, your sole purpose in getting a tattoo was to be tattooed. Having a tattoo is not an accidental byproduct of you going and sitting in a tattooist's chair and voluntarily giving him or her your cash to tattoo you with a design that you have chosen for yourself.
So, no, I don't see how those two things are comparable.
Millions of people go skiing; they don't all break their arms.
Millions of people get tattooed; every one of them has a tattoo.
It's a predictable consequence though.
If a person changes after getting a tattoo and the tattoo causes them psychological distress, the distress was never the intention, but an accidental by product, same as with the skier's broken arm.
Am happy to agree to disagree though. Both sides have presented their arguments and if neither want to change their opinion, well that is all of our rights.
And why should it be done free? Like I said in my original posting why should free treatment be given for a botched lifestyle choice? As I believe someone else posted no-one forced this person into having the body decoration nor was it an accidental by-product of something they were doing. And how can you determine the effect of the tattoo on their mental health? Sorry not buying.
It should be free the same as other things on the NHS that are the result of people's choice but negatively affecting them all the same.
I suppose we will have to see in decades to come whether people who have them are still happy with them. Especially as tattoos degrade and blur after time. Tattoos done relatively recently seem nice to look at.
What about treating drug and alcohol overdoses?
That is their problem not the NHS.
What do you mean, a person changes after getting a tattoo, in what respect. Psychological distress what is that, in relation to having a tattoo. Surely to goodness they knew before hand how the tattoo would look.
Neither do I agree with breast enlargements or gastric bands.
well partly that's an addiction. But yeah really the nhs shouldn't have to mop up after people for not controlling their alcohol intake. In other countries, they'd pay a higher insurance for that I'm sure.
This was what I used to say to my kids when they prattled on about tatts.
You don't drink a pint of beer thinking 'oh I'm going to become an alcoholic now and I won't be able to change that and it's my choice'.
Whereas you get a tattoo thinking: 'I'm going to have this tattoo permanently on my body and I won't be able to change that and it's my choice.
VASTLY different things. And the vast majority of people that have a drink don't have a problem, whereaa EVERY single one who gets a tattoo done, has a tattoo. And whether that's a problem or not is some personal regret, not the total dissolution of their mind and body.
I have 1 tattoo and I cant imagine I'd ever want it removed but if I did then I would never ever expect it not to cost me.
My decision, my body, my choice.
I totally agree with this post. I would also add that if you want a nose or boob job or a gastric band (except in extreme circumstances) then you should pay for it yourself.
When the NHS claim not to have the money to treat people who have actual conditions/illnesses (such as mollipop's husband above ^^) then they really shouldn't be wasting money on people wanting cosmetic treatments that they should fund themselves.
I don't agree that having tats should be a hindrance to finding employment, but that's how it is at the moment, so if people get tattoos in visible areas to the public then they get them at their own peril.
I want to get a tattoo which could be considered offensive (I think it's sexy to be honest) but I have no intention of getting it done on my lower arms or my face.