Someone posted a link to this (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030419/USEXXEC/TPHealth) on a discussion board for my politics class.

I don't know whether to gag, laugh, or throw myself off a tall building...
$6500 compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect ...Ha!

Any opinions? Thoughts?

What a waste of money. If someone wants to change gender, that's fine with me, but pay the damn bill yourself.

I think you should do all of the above. I don't know which part of this story is more insane, that someone would start an operation knowing he/she would run out of money and ask the government to make up the difference, that the government actually would offer to do so (although "only" at BC rates), or that a Canadian Court would officially recognize (in an offhanded way) that socialized medicine sucks and that one of its citizens should go to California for treatment.

Sheesh, and I thought that we had some weird court results here....

Full treatment costs are granted to transsexuals making the opposite switch, from men to women, the tribunal found. Now that sounds strange in itself.

That's just not right. If you're effeminate or suffering from penis envy, it's your problem. I am ready to hug you and listen to your story, but stay away from my taxes.

That's where my taxes are going?

That's it. I'm voting conservative.

Actually, I'm not against the aids to transsexuals.
I mean, these people have enough problems of their own (most often homophobia etc..) so I guess society ought to offer a minimum in compensation.
I don't know, maybe this is due to the fact of my living in a country where Social Security is compulsory... Anyway, if boob jobs are reimbursed, why transsexual operations shouldn't be?

Pray that the lawyers take it to higher court -someone sure has played a big, fat Aprils Fool -joke on the jury. :grin:

That's where my taxes are going?

That's it. I'm voting conservative. Sex change operations being covered by health care in Canada is nothing new - I know of two people who had the male to female operation back in the 80s when the Conservatives were in office.

The issue before the B.C. court was whether it is correct for the government to pay all of the costs of male to female changes but not female to male changes. Based upon that I would say the court's decision was the correct one.

Of course, I would say that the law ought to be changed so that all sex change related treatments be considered purely cosmetic (which you must pay for in Canada) and not medically required surgery.

The issue before the B.C. court was whether it is correct for the government to pay all of the costs of male to female changes but not female to male changes. Based upon that I would say the court's decision was the correct one.Agreed, anything else would be undue discrimination.

Anyway, if boob jobs are reimbursed, why transsexual operations shouldn't be?Again, keep away from my taxes. I don't want my precious taxes to be spent on plastic boobs for a rubber doll human equivalent who wants bigger ones than she already has.

Plus, I prefer smaller ones, anyway ;)

This is a much tougher issue than most of you seem to think. A gender is change is not at all a cosmetic thing but a process for someone to come to terms with their body. That said I am still not sure if it should be covered by medical insurance. I guess you could see it as a psychiatric treatment and I reckon most other such treatments are covered.

Not much to add other than to say that I agree with everything JSBB said.

I don't want my precious taxes to be spent on plastic boobs for a rubber doll human equivalent who wants bigger ones than she already has.
This is a much tougher issue than most of you seem to think. A gender is change is not at all a cosmetic thing but a process for someone to come to terms with their body. Just to add: I did not refer to cosmetic breast surgery that usual involves implants, but breast reduction which is a serious and necessery operation for women with... ahem... larger breasts which may damage the spine etc.. Which is a medically prescripted operation that is fully reimbursed by social security.

Just to add: I did not refer to cosmetic breast surgery that usual involves implants, but breast reduction which is a serious and necessery operation for women with... ahem... larger breasts which may damage the spine etc.. Which is a medically prescripted operation that is fully reimbursed by social security.OK, then. But let me explain my reasoning:

You compared gender change surgery to an undefined breast surgery, so I assumed you were referring to a cosmetic breast surgery. That is because gender change surgery is not something you need - contrary to those operations that reduce breast size in order to eliminate spine overload.

BTW, I'm perfectly OK with such operations being financed from taxes. But cosmetic surgeries should only be financed from taxes for people who have been disfigured in an accident, born with defects, have undergone a disease leaving ugly marks, or something similar.

I concur with you Chev. If it is just cosmetic, then it shouldn't be paid for with my tax money.

Yeah, there is an actual Psychological term for the man trapped in woman's body (and vice versa, of course), and it's seen as a legitimate psychological disorder, and a sex change operation is prescribed as treatment for that disorder. I have no problem at all with the government using my tax money to help cure a person with a legitimate psychological disorder. There are also many cases where I'd justify using taxpayer's money to finance cosmetic surgery (burn victims, birth defects, etc.); these people pay taxes too, and they're justified in wanting some of the benefits of their social systems. Of course, more frivulous use of the medical systems (breats enlargements, nose jobs, etc.) are another matter, again, unless there is a legimitmate medical concern behind it.