Cancer survivor refused breast reconstruction
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rgery.html
Cancer survivor refused breast reconstruction operation after NHS officials dismiss it as 'cosmetic surgery'
Patsy Parsons was denied a breast augmentation operation on the NHS after surviving cancer
A cancer sufferer has condemned the NHS ' postcode lottery' after health chiefs refused to fund her breast reconstruction.
Mother-of-four Patsy Parsons had a large section of her left breast removed when she was diagnosed two years ago and was told she was entitled to have it rebuilt free of charge.
But despite being recommended for a £5,000 bilateral breast augmentation operation - complex surgery which involves inserting implants and uplifting both breasts - by her consultant, the local primary care trust refused to fund it.
It said her operation is 'low priority, routine' cosmetic surgery, which is paid for by the NHS only in exceptional circumstances.
Last night Mrs Parsons - who has four children aged between two and 14 with her labourer husband, Robert, 35 - said she was the victim of a 'postcode lottery'.
Guidelines state all women who undergo a mastectomy - a complete breast removal - should be given reconstruction by the state.
However, it is at the discretion of PCTs whether to fund the surgery for women such as Mrs Parsons who have partial breast removals, or lumpectomies.
'I feel completely let down and insulted by the NHS,' said Mrs Parsons, a cafe owner.
'I'm not some celebrity model wanting a boob job to get more pictures in a glossy magazine - I need this to boost my self-esteem.
'Some PCTs are saying they will fund it and some are saying they won't. It's not fair, it should be one rule for everyone across the country. It's a postcode lottery.'
Mrs Parsons had been scheduled to have breast augmentation surgery at the University of North Staffordshire Hospital
Mrs Parsons, 33, was diagnosed with breast cancer after finding a lump in her breast in April 2008. Doctors told her the cancer was aggressive and she needed a partial lumpectomy to remove the tumour and 16 lymph nodes to stop the disease spreading.
They reassured her that after her treatment, which included ten months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, she would be entitled to reconstructive surgery.
She also had a hysterectomy in June to improve her chances of beating the cancer for good.
Three months later Mrs Parsons, of Stoke- on-Trent, discussed reconstructive surgery at University of Staffordshire Hospital. A consultant recommended she undergo a bilateral breast augmentation and advised it would be paid for by the NHS.
So she was devastated when, in December, Stoke-on-Trent PCT refused to fund her operation.
Mrs Parsons said her breasts are disfigured and she has been depressed since learning the operation would not happen. Although she appealed, the request was denied twice more.
Dr Zafar Iqbal, of Stoke- on-Trent PCT, said he was unable to comment on individual cases, but stressed they would be reconsidering Mrs Parsons' plight.
'The NHS is not in a position to meet all the demands placed upon it,' he said.
Don't worry this will never happen in the America according to Obama.
Rigggghhhhhhhhhhht... :roll:
Cancer survivor refused breast reconstruction operation after NHS officials dismiss it as 'cosmetic surgery'
Patsy Parsons was denied a breast augmentation operation on the NHS after surviving cancer
A cancer sufferer has condemned the NHS ' postcode lottery' after health chiefs refused to fund her breast reconstruction.
Mother-of-four Patsy Parsons had a large section of her left breast removed when she was diagnosed two years ago and was told she was entitled to have it rebuilt free of charge.
But despite being recommended for a £5,000 bilateral breast augmentation operation - complex surgery which involves inserting implants and uplifting both breasts - by her consultant, the local primary care trust refused to fund it.
It said her operation is 'low priority, routine' cosmetic surgery, which is paid for by the NHS only in exceptional circumstances.
Last night Mrs Parsons - who has four children aged between two and 14 with her labourer husband, Robert, 35 - said she was the victim of a 'postcode lottery'.
Guidelines state all women who undergo a mastectomy - a complete breast removal - should be given reconstruction by the state.
However, it is at the discretion of PCTs whether to fund the surgery for women such as Mrs Parsons who have partial breast removals, or lumpectomies.
'I feel completely let down and insulted by the NHS,' said Mrs Parsons, a cafe owner.
'I'm not some celebrity model wanting a boob job to get more pictures in a glossy magazine - I need this to boost my self-esteem.
'Some PCTs are saying they will fund it and some are saying they won't. It's not fair, it should be one rule for everyone across the country. It's a postcode lottery.'
Mrs Parsons had been scheduled to have breast augmentation surgery at the University of North Staffordshire Hospital
Mrs Parsons, 33, was diagnosed with breast cancer after finding a lump in her breast in April 2008. Doctors told her the cancer was aggressive and she needed a partial lumpectomy to remove the tumour and 16 lymph nodes to stop the disease spreading.
They reassured her that after her treatment, which included ten months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, she would be entitled to reconstructive surgery.
She also had a hysterectomy in June to improve her chances of beating the cancer for good.
Three months later Mrs Parsons, of Stoke- on-Trent, discussed reconstructive surgery at University of Staffordshire Hospital. A consultant recommended she undergo a bilateral breast augmentation and advised it would be paid for by the NHS.
So she was devastated when, in December, Stoke-on-Trent PCT refused to fund her operation.
Mrs Parsons said her breasts are disfigured and she has been depressed since learning the operation would not happen. Although she appealed, the request was denied twice more.
Dr Zafar Iqbal, of Stoke- on-Trent PCT, said he was unable to comment on individual cases, but stressed they would be reconsidering Mrs Parsons' plight.
'The NHS is not in a position to meet all the demands placed upon it,' he said.
Don't worry this will never happen in the America according to Obama.
Rigggghhhhhhhhhhht... :roll:
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/user/kcherub#p/a/u/0/N-UQprRqSwo
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
It's a very cold and hard way to say something like this and I personally believe if following any surgery to remove a tumour, one is defaced, it should be put right. But this is not one of those 'horror' stories where one has not received treatment etc. In the harsh light, it can be considered cosmetic. If not having this surgery seriously messes her up psychologically, it is no longer just a cosmetic issue.
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2010/ ... rmageddon/
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Anecdotal stories don't tell the whole story of a system that supplies health care to over 60 million people. You could also say the NHS saved her life through all the cancer treatment she was given.
Exactly. And we can't say for sure that she would have been given that life-saving cancer treatment under the U.S. system.
Don't forget, prfctlefts, if you're trying to use this as an argument that the NHS is worse than our current system (which doesn't work anyway because it's anecdotal), then you have to actually compare the NHS to our current system. Would you rather this woman be alive with no breast reconstruction or possibly dead with no breast reconstruction?
This song about the Daily Mail sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And I can tell you that I personally know several breast cancer survivors (being a voluenteer crew member for both the Susan G. Komen 3-Day and Avon 2-Day walks since 2002) who were denied breast reconstructive surgery by their health care providers. As well some survivors who were covered by their providers.
Results... a wash.
Hail, Hail!!!
i hope at the very least, prfctlefts comes back to give you a reply to that question.
Yes, because our socialized medical system that covers everyone denies people treatments all the time.
Oh wait, we don't have one.
Come to think of it, we have Medicare, Medicaid and the VA... they deny treatments to their patients all the time right?
Oh wait... they don't.
But our for profit insurance industry would NEVER do that.
Oh wait... they do.
Although, to the point, the law requires insurance companies to cover breast reconstructive surgery.
Thanks for not being a dick.
The whole point behind this thread was to point out this is where we are heading if we dont repeal this disasterous bill that does nothing but raise premiums,cost people more jobs,force people into medicare,and it's going to make hudge cuts to medicare.
also Im very well aware that people get turned down for whatever the case may be.But at least you have the ablity to make an appeal against the INS company and if they don't cover it then you can sue their asses. But when the gov makes the final decision like the NHS does and did in this case then what ? Your fucked.
No you can also appeal (as the person in the report has) ... and you can also take the NHS trust to court to try to get them forced to give treatment, or you can sue them. The article also says "Dr Zafar Iqbal, of Stoke- on-Trent PCT, said he was unable to comment on individual cases, but stressed they would be reconsidering Mrs Parsons' plight."
that's good to hear... Thank you for correcting me.
You're welcome.
In fact a girl (13) had a court battle to STOP the NHS from treating her ... she needed a heart transplant http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 09569.html ... that was a couple of years ago and she has now changed her mind and had a transplant
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
this law will never be repealed. it would take a landslide victory where the gop will gain 66% of both houses of congress, they will all have to vote to repeal it, obama would have to sign the new legislation to repeal it. or he could veto it, and 66% of both houses would have to vote to override the veto. short story, ain't gonna happen...so all of the teabaggers can move on to the next issue that they know nothing about...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think you complain about where we're heading without paying enough attention to where we're coming from. Sure, there are flaws with national healthcare like there are with any system, but it's still an improvement from the status quo. Besides, the NHS is irrelevant at this point because (unfortunately) we do not have a national health system.
Regarding insurance appeals: 1. Do you know for a fact that there's no appeals process for the NHS? 2. The appeals process for private insurance companies is a joke. And who the hell has the resources to sue??
Just this week I was talking to a doctor who had a bunch of necessary treatments for himself denied by his insurance company. He spent YEARS fighting it. He had to hire a lawyer and has so far payed $15,000 for the lawyer fees. I say "so far" because you know what happened next? He had to quit working because of his condition, so he lost his insurance. Thankfully he was able to get on his wife's insurance, but this meant a change to a whole new company and he's had to start the fight all over again. And now they're getting divorced so he's about to be dropped.
The only reasons he's not 100% completely fucked is because a) he had an extra $15,000 (though now he probably doesn't), b) he knows the system better than most people, and c) he happens to be a specialist in the field that deals with his problem! This is what happens to people with considerably more resources than most people have!
This status quo is NOT better than the reform we have passed or the national system we should have enacted.
But what part of 'she would be less likely to be alive under our current system than under a national system' are you not understanding? You're just ignoring the whole risk of death and focusing on only the reconstructive surgery. You can't just ignore the death part because it doesn't support your point!
it just bewilders me there is so much support for this type of system.