Hold on a second.
1. Do we know on what grounds this woman was granted treatment? My understanding of the NHS is rudimentary, but is there not a (ostensible) vetting system in place? There's a vague allusion to a condition meaning she has no natural breast tissue.
2. If this woman really does suffer from this conidition, which in turn, causes her emotional distress, should we really be differentiating this sort of mental anguish from physical pain or even illness? All would have a material effect on someone's life - of course, to what degree is the question. The article, as you'd expect, doesn't really provide any detail here.
3. Perhaps people are falling into the trap of dismissing tabloid stories when they don't want to believe them, but absorbing them when they conveniently want to make a point? I'm not massively au fait with the OP's agenda, but I have seen him make some comments regarding the "state of the nation" and various socio-economic commentaries, if you will. This is not a criticism but just an observation.
4. Similarly, The Sun loves this sort of "world's gone made", "the country's in ruin" sort of story. They'll take the most tenuous link to make their point. Here, we have no real idea as to whether she has a genuine cause of action and the quotes are so extreme they suggest an exaggeration. Quotes aside, clearly, if a hospital acts negligently, which enhancing a patient's breasts to larger than was agreed, there's a claim. A hospital's duty of care isn't eroded because of how the claim is funded.
5. Plus, I think it's slightly disingenuous to say we don't do what this woman is alleged to have done. When we go to see a doctor, we exaggerate our symptoms to ensure things are taken more seriously, and to increase the likelihood of faster treatment and availability of medicine. Yes, her case, as it's put, is more extreme, but those in glass houses etc.
I'm not saying the story isn't true, or there aren't people like this, or inherent failings in the NHS, but I think people are getting a little carried away.
1. Do we know on what grounds this woman was granted treatment? My understanding of the NHS is rudimentary, but is there not a (ostensible) vetting system in place? There's a vague allusion to a condition meaning she has no natural breast tissue.
2. If this woman really does suffer from this conidition, which in turn, causes her emotional distress, should we really be differentiating this sort of mental anguish from physical pain or even illness? All would have a material effect on someone's life - of course, to what degree is the question. The article, as you'd expect, doesn't really provide any detail here.
3. Perhaps people are falling into the trap of dismissing tabloid stories when they don't want to believe them, but absorbing them when they conveniently want to make a point? I'm not massively au fait with the OP's agenda, but I have seen him make some comments regarding the "state of the nation" and various socio-economic commentaries, if you will. This is not a criticism but just an observation.
4. Similarly, The Sun loves this sort of "world's gone made", "the country's in ruin" sort of story. They'll take the most tenuous link to make their point. Here, we have no real idea as to whether she has a genuine cause of action and the quotes are so extreme they suggest an exaggeration. Quotes aside, clearly, if a hospital acts negligently, which enhancing a patient's breasts to larger than was agreed, there's a claim. A hospital's duty of care isn't eroded because of how the claim is funded.
5. Plus, I think it's slightly disingenuous to say we don't do what this woman is alleged to have done. When we go to see a doctor, we exaggerate our symptoms to ensure things are taken more seriously, and to increase the likelihood of faster treatment and availability of medicine. Yes, her case, as it's put, is more extreme, but those in glass houses etc.
I'm not saying the story isn't true, or there aren't people like this, or inherent failings in the NHS, but I think people are getting a little carried away.
