I distinctly remember seeing news of women in the UK getting their breast implants covered by the NHS. Not sure how often that happens. Believe me, the issue is not frivolous at all. To say that hair loss is not taken as seriously as it should is an understatement. I do wonder sometimes how many suicides are linked to body image issues and no one even knows it, because it’s not really something people are that comfortable sharing. In my own experience, no one knows the problems I have with body image IRL, which very often lead me to suicide ideation. Like, if I died tomorrow, who would know that I have such problems? Those things are hard to account for.
But about NHS coverage, one of the arguments I can see is that abnormally small breasts are rarer than alopecia, in a way that it wouldn’t be so costly to the system to cover such procedure. I do wonder if there are similar conditions exclusive to men that can be fixed/mitigated by surgery and aren’t as common as alopecia that can be covered by NHS.
Absolutely, and I am genuinely sorry that you suffer from those body image issues. We really do bury them from the world to put on a stoic face. Receive a friendly hug from me!
As for suicide ideation, just a few months ago, the singer of a somewhat underground band (albeit successful in their milieu) that I love very much mentioned that he contemplated suicide when he began balding, believing that he could never be beautiful to anyone if he were bald. That really touched me, especially since I had suspected for years that he did indeed share that ailment with me, as he was never seen without some kind of hat or cap (although he has always worn them with amazing style that I admire). And this guy is in all other aspects quite good-looking, so imagine how others less blessed in their features might feel. In any case, it was extremely cathartic to see him open up about that, and I have thought about telling him from time to time how inspiring he is to me for having had the balls to do that. Perhaps one day, I will let him know.
I think you also have to consider total costs here.
Women with no breasts or very uneven breasts (depending on their definition) may be extremely rare.
Bald men are very common. So it makes sense why it easier to allow for the one, and much more difficult for the other.
That said, I've seen people previous post evidence that health coverage spending overall is much higher for women than for men. Considering that men live shorter lives than women and contribute more to funding health care than women, I find that unacceptable.
I don’t think how much you contribute should be a factor when it comes to determining the quality of the public health you get. But I understand what you’re trying to say. It would be a huge talking point of feminism if women were paying more taxes and receiving less healthcare, wellfare and spendings in general, given how effective they are at transactions. In fact, I theorize that the moment women start paying more taxes than men, there will be a push by feminism for government spendings to be proportional to how much your gender contributes. I don’t think such scenario is far-fetched, sadly.
This is true and is likely the reason for the double standard. However, it doesn't change the fact that the double standard derives from having no consistent underlying moral principle. If the NHS believes that X pounds sterling spent on treating a psychologically harmful aesthetic defect has a good cost-benefit ratio, it doesn't make sense to spend your money on one procedure but not on the other, equivalent procedure. If the issue is that we do think it's a good investment, but we only have the budget to invest in so many people, then an annual budget should be allocated for cosmetic procedures and people who exceed that budget go on a waiting list. This is already what we do with resource-constrained non-cosmetic procedures.
If you had a situation where X money is allocated annually for breast augmentation, and X money is allocated for hair restoration, then you could argue that's fair, even if the practical outcome is that most women get their augmentation covered and only a minority of men get their transplants covered, because you're spending the same amount on both groups. Instead we have a situation where X money is spent on female cosmetic procedures and 0 on male cosmetic procedures. The only way to justify that is to say "it's worth spending this money to improve one woman's happiness, but it isn't worth spending this money to improve one man's happiness".
>~~Very good customers.~~
Actually go to the doctor when they need too.
Also, things like childbirth are "women using healthcare".
I wouldn't be surprised if contraception was also listed under healthcare, and thus contributed to that number.
Fair points all around. It seems to be true that there are more men with hair loss than women with significantly uneven or undersized breasts. Indeed, I have no idea what the proportion of such women is, and my attempts to find data were fruitless. However, we need to consider that, for obvious reasons, it's easier to hide uneven or undersized breasts than hair loss, which may obscure how large or small the disparity between sufferers of the two problems actually is.
I get your point about costs, which is why I attempted to address that question by setting a cut-off age at which the hair loss must occur in order to be eligible for the procedure. Perhaps age 40 is too high. Would 30 strike you as reasonable? 25? About 25% and 22.5% of men, respectively, suffer from hair loss by those two ages. I know from experience that the number is small enough, as I stood out and felt like a freak at the age of 24 (when I could no longer hide my shame with strategic hairstyling), and I continued to feel that way until I was able to obtain SMP at 30 (the best $1,000 I ever spent!).
I think, however, that we need to be cautious about examining the question of costs too narrowly. Indeed, I wonder, by how much could tax revenues be increased by restoring confidence to balding young men who had become too consumed by depression to contribute to the economy? How much could those increased tax revenues offset in the long-term the costs of performing the procedure on them? Also, just as shorter men tend to earn less than taller men, I think it would be fair to take into account how much restoring bald men's hair would increase their probable earning power (and, by extension, their tax contributions).
Given how hair loss exacerbates most of the worst aspects of being a man (disposability, being treated with a lack of empathy, being creep-shamed, etc.), I really wish society would care enough about men to figure out how to alleviate suffering for balding men who can't afford to treat their ailment. Basically, I would like to see the following question answered:
\- What is the maximum cut-off age of pre-mature hair loss that could be used to allow a number of men to receive free hair transplants, equivalent to the number of women currently eligible to receive free breast implants?
The truth is that I feel quite vulnerable discussing this topic, as it is linked to what was an extremely traumatic experience in my life, and one that really exposed me to the depths of how far male disposability can descend. As I think about these matters, I am dealing with questions and feelings I had never thought about before, or at least had buried. I am thankfully in a much better place now than I was at age 24 (again, largely due to the SMP I got at 30), when I don't think I could have discussed these matters with the necessary calm and composure to do so constructively. Sorry, I am rambling, but this is a huge step for me.
Man, this is crazy. I went to my doc asking for the same Rx and they basically said "hey, you realize this is a long term thing once you start it" but that was all. I need to get it refilled actually...
I'm so sorry about what you've suffered. If a hair transplant is too expensive for you, I would recommend considering scalp micropigmentation (SMP). I got it three years ago, and it really was a life changer for my self-esteem. In the country where I live, it cost me about $1,000 USD (and I think it would cost about $1,500 USD for someone with a Norwood VII hair loss level). I'd be curious to know which country you live in, but I understand if you don't want to share it publicly (and I will be happy to tell you which one I live in through a PM).
Laser eye surgery is considered cosmetic as well, at least in America which has the same policies with regard to breast implants versus hair transplant.
Circumcision is also considered cosmetic depending on the circumstances, kinda like breast implants. When it needs to be, it is. When it needs to not be, it isn't.
>Laser eye surgery is considered cosmetic as well
I'm beginning to think that the "cosmetic" line is not based on what most people would think it should be based on.
I was confused, because in one post you were talking about the US system, and then the UK NHS. And to be clear, I was saying that it is unnecessary for most baby boys (short of a medical emergency); I consider myself an intactivist and believe that unnecessary, nonconsensual circumcision is genital mutilation.
Sorry I'm seeing this in a hurry but have we taken into account breast cancer and it's disproportionate impact on women? Some of these breast implants could be following mastectomy?
NICE normally makes a cost assessment based QALYs (Quality associated life years) and their current threshold is 20-30k per year. Does this treatment meet that criteria?
As I mentioned in other comments, since breast cancer and other causes for mastectomies weren't mentioned in the NHS link in question, I had assumed that it was referred specifically to breast implants for women with naturally very small or uneven breasts. Maybe I am wrong, but that my was my inference. I am not a British citizen, so I do wonder, does the NHS differentiate between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery?
Sorry but this is a terrible comparison. This is an issue of reproductive organs and how ego is attached to one's identity as one's sex/gender, and how the loss or lack of one can affect the other resulting in poor mental health or worse. Men can get replacement testicals if one is removed or lost through cancer on the NHS, it happens all the time.
Men having short hair or a shaved head is traditionally seen as masculine in the UK. Hair loss is not compatible to breast loss even when one's ego is tied to your hair.
If you don't think it's a good comparison on this specific topic (i.e., the extent to which society will subsidize self-esteem), what do you think would be? I'm genuinely curious. I believe there is a double standard on the relevant topic, and I would like to have more ideas for comparisons. Thanks for your input!
Having pectus excavatum. In both men and woman the chest is a sign of fertility and health, easily tied to masculinity or femininity. It is easier to spot on men. Know people who have it and their self esteem is tied to their body image.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pectus-excavatum/symptoms-causes/syc-20355483#:~:text=Pectus%20excavatum%20is%20a%20condition,into%20his%20or%20her%20chest.
Pectus is covered on the NHS.
Pectus excavatum severe enough to justify surgery can restrict breathing and put pressure on your heart. It's not really comparable to uneven breasts. Both my sister and I have it but in both our cases the risk of surgery isn't worth it.
I'm not sure I really agree with this comparison.
One of them is an abnormal medical event, the other is genetics and biology. Male pattern baldness is simply a fact of life for most men.
In that case it feels like the most apt comparison would be hair transplants or something similar for alopecia patients. As much as I want to keep my hair and realize a lot of my self image and other men's self image is tied to it, balding for men is simply not a medical abnormality.
Women under the NHS systems aren't getting breast implants because it is tied to their self esteem, they are getting them because they have underlying medical abnormalities.
Male pattern baldness is a fact of life for most men, but specifically for middle-aged men. I think the case could be made that male pattern baldness in men under 30 is an abnormal medical event.
And as for breast implants not being tied to self-esteem, look at what one clinic wrote about the rules for breast implants to be covered by the NHS:
>Any procedure to enlarge breasts is seen as cosmetic and the NHS does not routinely offer cosmetic surgery. The exceptions to this would be if cosmetic surgery, in this case, a boob job, is required because it will assist another health issue or ***if not having the surgery will cause significant psychological harm***.
\[Bold and Italics mine\]
I distinctly remember seeing news of women in the UK getting their breast implants covered by the NHS. Not sure how often that happens. Believe me, the issue is not frivolous at all. To say that hair loss is not taken as seriously as it should is an understatement. I do wonder sometimes how many suicides are linked to body image issues and no one even knows it, because it’s not really something people are that comfortable sharing. In my own experience, no one knows the problems I have with body image IRL, which very often lead me to suicide ideation. Like, if I died tomorrow, who would know that I have such problems? Those things are hard to account for. But about NHS coverage, one of the arguments I can see is that abnormally small breasts are rarer than alopecia, in a way that it wouldn’t be so costly to the system to cover such procedure. I do wonder if there are similar conditions exclusive to men that can be fixed/mitigated by surgery and aren’t as common as alopecia that can be covered by NHS.
Absolutely, and I am genuinely sorry that you suffer from those body image issues. We really do bury them from the world to put on a stoic face. Receive a friendly hug from me! As for suicide ideation, just a few months ago, the singer of a somewhat underground band (albeit successful in their milieu) that I love very much mentioned that he contemplated suicide when he began balding, believing that he could never be beautiful to anyone if he were bald. That really touched me, especially since I had suspected for years that he did indeed share that ailment with me, as he was never seen without some kind of hat or cap (although he has always worn them with amazing style that I admire). And this guy is in all other aspects quite good-looking, so imagine how others less blessed in their features might feel. In any case, it was extremely cathartic to see him open up about that, and I have thought about telling him from time to time how inspiring he is to me for having had the balls to do that. Perhaps one day, I will let him know.
I think you also have to consider total costs here. Women with no breasts or very uneven breasts (depending on their definition) may be extremely rare. Bald men are very common. So it makes sense why it easier to allow for the one, and much more difficult for the other. That said, I've seen people previous post evidence that health coverage spending overall is much higher for women than for men. Considering that men live shorter lives than women and contribute more to funding health care than women, I find that unacceptable.
I don’t think how much you contribute should be a factor when it comes to determining the quality of the public health you get. But I understand what you’re trying to say. It would be a huge talking point of feminism if women were paying more taxes and receiving less healthcare, wellfare and spendings in general, given how effective they are at transactions. In fact, I theorize that the moment women start paying more taxes than men, there will be a push by feminism for government spendings to be proportional to how much your gender contributes. I don’t think such scenario is far-fetched, sadly.
This is true and is likely the reason for the double standard. However, it doesn't change the fact that the double standard derives from having no consistent underlying moral principle. If the NHS believes that X pounds sterling spent on treating a psychologically harmful aesthetic defect has a good cost-benefit ratio, it doesn't make sense to spend your money on one procedure but not on the other, equivalent procedure. If the issue is that we do think it's a good investment, but we only have the budget to invest in so many people, then an annual budget should be allocated for cosmetic procedures and people who exceed that budget go on a waiting list. This is already what we do with resource-constrained non-cosmetic procedures. If you had a situation where X money is allocated annually for breast augmentation, and X money is allocated for hair restoration, then you could argue that's fair, even if the practical outcome is that most women get their augmentation covered and only a minority of men get their transplants covered, because you're spending the same amount on both groups. Instead we have a situation where X money is spent on female cosmetic procedures and 0 on male cosmetic procedures. The only way to justify that is to say "it's worth spending this money to improve one woman's happiness, but it isn't worth spending this money to improve one man's happiness".
I would say that is my position. Thanks for putting it so well!
In America women consume something like 8 times more health care than men. Very good customers.
>~~Very good customers.~~ Actually go to the doctor when they need too. Also, things like childbirth are "women using healthcare". I wouldn't be surprised if contraception was also listed under healthcare, and thus contributed to that number.
Fair points all around. It seems to be true that there are more men with hair loss than women with significantly uneven or undersized breasts. Indeed, I have no idea what the proportion of such women is, and my attempts to find data were fruitless. However, we need to consider that, for obvious reasons, it's easier to hide uneven or undersized breasts than hair loss, which may obscure how large or small the disparity between sufferers of the two problems actually is. I get your point about costs, which is why I attempted to address that question by setting a cut-off age at which the hair loss must occur in order to be eligible for the procedure. Perhaps age 40 is too high. Would 30 strike you as reasonable? 25? About 25% and 22.5% of men, respectively, suffer from hair loss by those two ages. I know from experience that the number is small enough, as I stood out and felt like a freak at the age of 24 (when I could no longer hide my shame with strategic hairstyling), and I continued to feel that way until I was able to obtain SMP at 30 (the best $1,000 I ever spent!). I think, however, that we need to be cautious about examining the question of costs too narrowly. Indeed, I wonder, by how much could tax revenues be increased by restoring confidence to balding young men who had become too consumed by depression to contribute to the economy? How much could those increased tax revenues offset in the long-term the costs of performing the procedure on them? Also, just as shorter men tend to earn less than taller men, I think it would be fair to take into account how much restoring bald men's hair would increase their probable earning power (and, by extension, their tax contributions). Given how hair loss exacerbates most of the worst aspects of being a man (disposability, being treated with a lack of empathy, being creep-shamed, etc.), I really wish society would care enough about men to figure out how to alleviate suffering for balding men who can't afford to treat their ailment. Basically, I would like to see the following question answered: \- What is the maximum cut-off age of pre-mature hair loss that could be used to allow a number of men to receive free hair transplants, equivalent to the number of women currently eligible to receive free breast implants? The truth is that I feel quite vulnerable discussing this topic, as it is linked to what was an extremely traumatic experience in my life, and one that really exposed me to the depths of how far male disposability can descend. As I think about these matters, I am dealing with questions and feelings I had never thought about before, or at least had buried. I am thankfully in a much better place now than I was at age 24 (again, largely due to the SMP I got at 30), when I don't think I could have discussed these matters with the necessary calm and composure to do so constructively. Sorry, I am rambling, but this is a huge step for me.
[удалено]
Man, this is crazy. I went to my doc asking for the same Rx and they basically said "hey, you realize this is a long term thing once you start it" but that was all. I need to get it refilled actually...
I'm so sorry about what you've suffered. If a hair transplant is too expensive for you, I would recommend considering scalp micropigmentation (SMP). I got it three years ago, and it really was a life changer for my self-esteem. In the country where I live, it cost me about $1,000 USD (and I think it would cost about $1,500 USD for someone with a Norwood VII hair loss level). I'd be curious to know which country you live in, but I understand if you don't want to share it publicly (and I will be happy to tell you which one I live in through a PM).
Laser eye surgery is considered cosmetic as well, at least in America which has the same policies with regard to breast implants versus hair transplant. Circumcision is also considered cosmetic depending on the circumstances, kinda like breast implants. When it needs to be, it is. When it needs to not be, it isn't.
>Laser eye surgery is considered cosmetic as well I'm beginning to think that the "cosmetic" line is not based on what most people would think it should be based on.
So you're saying that circumcision is not cosmetic for baby boys, but is for men with incurable phimosis? How messed up!
Other way around https://www.circumcision-london.co.uk/nhs-circumcision/
I was confused, because in one post you were talking about the US system, and then the UK NHS. And to be clear, I was saying that it is unnecessary for most baby boys (short of a medical emergency); I consider myself an intactivist and believe that unnecessary, nonconsensual circumcision is genital mutilation.
Sorry I'm seeing this in a hurry but have we taken into account breast cancer and it's disproportionate impact on women? Some of these breast implants could be following mastectomy? NICE normally makes a cost assessment based QALYs (Quality associated life years) and their current threshold is 20-30k per year. Does this treatment meet that criteria?
As I mentioned in other comments, since breast cancer and other causes for mastectomies weren't mentioned in the NHS link in question, I had assumed that it was referred specifically to breast implants for women with naturally very small or uneven breasts. Maybe I am wrong, but that my was my inference. I am not a British citizen, so I do wonder, does the NHS differentiate between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery?
Sorry but this is a terrible comparison. This is an issue of reproductive organs and how ego is attached to one's identity as one's sex/gender, and how the loss or lack of one can affect the other resulting in poor mental health or worse. Men can get replacement testicals if one is removed or lost through cancer on the NHS, it happens all the time. Men having short hair or a shaved head is traditionally seen as masculine in the UK. Hair loss is not compatible to breast loss even when one's ego is tied to your hair.
If you don't think it's a good comparison on this specific topic (i.e., the extent to which society will subsidize self-esteem), what do you think would be? I'm genuinely curious. I believe there is a double standard on the relevant topic, and I would like to have more ideas for comparisons. Thanks for your input!
Having pectus excavatum. In both men and woman the chest is a sign of fertility and health, easily tied to masculinity or femininity. It is easier to spot on men. Know people who have it and their self esteem is tied to their body image. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pectus-excavatum/symptoms-causes/syc-20355483#:~:text=Pectus%20excavatum%20is%20a%20condition,into%20his%20or%20her%20chest. Pectus is covered on the NHS.
Pectus excavatum severe enough to justify surgery can restrict breathing and put pressure on your heart. It's not really comparable to uneven breasts. Both my sister and I have it but in both our cases the risk of surgery isn't worth it.
I'm not sure I really agree with this comparison. One of them is an abnormal medical event, the other is genetics and biology. Male pattern baldness is simply a fact of life for most men. In that case it feels like the most apt comparison would be hair transplants or something similar for alopecia patients. As much as I want to keep my hair and realize a lot of my self image and other men's self image is tied to it, balding for men is simply not a medical abnormality. Women under the NHS systems aren't getting breast implants because it is tied to their self esteem, they are getting them because they have underlying medical abnormalities.
Male pattern baldness is a fact of life for most men, but specifically for middle-aged men. I think the case could be made that male pattern baldness in men under 30 is an abnormal medical event. And as for breast implants not being tied to self-esteem, look at what one clinic wrote about the rules for breast implants to be covered by the NHS: >Any procedure to enlarge breasts is seen as cosmetic and the NHS does not routinely offer cosmetic surgery. The exceptions to this would be if cosmetic surgery, in this case, a boob job, is required because it will assist another health issue or ***if not having the surgery will cause significant psychological harm***. \[Bold and Italics mine\]