Jump to content


Photo

I can't believe THIS!!!!!


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:44 PM

The New Brunswick Government recently announced that it will be dealing with the province's $820-million deficit in the upcoming 2011 budget. The Department of Finance has approved more than 100 different cuts in areas of Health, Education, and Social Development.

Within those cuts the government is looking at slashing certain elective surgeries including one that is very important to breast cancer patients, breast reconstructive surgery with implants.


Currently New Brunswick Medicare covers the cost of this essential surgery for women who due to breast cancer need to have their breast (s) removed.


This decision is unjust and will have a negative impact on quality of life of breast cancer patients and survivors.


Let the Minister of Health know that this surgery is vital to breast cancer patients. Join your voice with ours and hundreds of other women by protesting this proposed cut. Please email the Minister of Health, the Honourable Madeleine Dubé at madeleine.dube@gnb.ca and send a copy to us at amacisaac-butler@cbcn.ca.


We need to be a united voice for breast cancer patients and survivors in New Brunswick and across Canada!

OK I KNOW THIS WON'T EFFECT US BUT REALLY WE NEED TO STOP THIS. PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO VOTE. I MEAN I KNOW IT IS MY CHOICE TO REMAIN BOOBLESS BUT IT IS ONE I KNOW I CAN CHANGE AT ANY TIME. I WOULD HATE NOT AHVING THE CHOICE!!!!!!!

Edited by scrappy survivor, 16 February 2011 - 03:49 PM.


#2 DivineMrsM

DivineMrsM

    Member since October 2005

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,592 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:52 PM

awwww! That's awful that they want to take that away. Just because breasts are technically cosmetic (aside from nursing) that doesn't mean they arent vital to a woman's self esteem. How awful that they are judging what is essential and what is not.

#3 Sam

Sam

    No turning back now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 05:12 PM

May I ask without being offensive why this surgery is vital? Is it strictly for self esteem?

#4 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 06:38 PM

IMO they could cut in worse places. I know it sucks, and for you it hits extremely personally, but if they have to, I'm guessing they did the proper research in order to see where they COULD make cuts.

Sucks they have to make them, but really there is no medical "need" for reconstruction, they can't really say that it's necessary for survival, etc. I know it sucks that they fund certain elective surgeries that most of us disagree with, and they cut funds to others, but unfortunetly that's the way it goes sometimes.

#5 DivineMrsM

DivineMrsM

    Member since October 2005

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,592 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 07:12 PM

May I ask without being offensive why this surgery is vital? Is it strictly for self esteem?



To me, yes. I didn't have my breasts cut off, but I did lose one. And I cry every day about it. So yeah, to me, breasts are vital to MY self esteem.

But, I can only imagine what a woman who had her breasts cut off and has massive scarring on her chest where her breasts had once been. I can only imagine how it would feel to look down and only see scars. And to know that the only way to fix that is to come up with thousands of dollars that not everyone has.

#6 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:27 PM

No I would not say strictly for self esteem.

Look at this link 3rd row woman with traditional mastectomy:

http://www.breastpre...ing-mastectomy/

Oh & they are still covering abortion, vastectomy, tubal ligation, sex changes, & gastro. Are those vital??? What is more is they are only cutting breast recon with implants. It is the least invasive, least expensive, least risky breast recon. Why not cut the more dnagerous, more risky, more expensive ones if they HAVE to cut?? But they don't. Not when they are not cutting these other proceedures.

I chose not to ahve recon becuase right now is not the right time. It is difficult though I can't buy clothes. I hate clothes. If they have avneck I can't wear them if they ahve straps I can't wear them if they ahve a square neck I can't wear them it is very much an issue.

#7 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:28 PM

Honestly I was looking for support for these women if you can't offer that then that is fine but really must you post it? If you have never walked in our shoes you can't begin to imagine & it really makes me wonder........

#8 Sam

Sam

    No turning back now

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:37 PM

No I would not say strictly for self esteem.

Look at this link 3rd row woman with traditional mastectomy:

http://www.breastpre...ing-mastectomy/

Oh & they are still covering abortion, vastectomy, tubal ligation, sex changes, & gastro. Are those vital??? What is more is they are only cutting breast recon with implants. It is the least invasive, least expensive, least risky breast recon. Why not cut the more dnagerous, more risky, more expensive ones if they HAVE to cut?? But they don't. Not when they are not cutting these other proceedures.

I chose not to ahve recon becuase right now is not the right time. It is difficult though I can't buy clothes. I hate clothes. If they have avneck I can't wear them if they ahve straps I can't wear them if they ahve a square neck I can't wear them it is very much an issue.



thank you for sharing that link. I have never saw pictures like that before, and yes I would agree that reconstruction would be vital. for anyone to think otherwise ....

#9 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:37 PM

Are we now saying who can and cannot reply? I understand it sucks, everything would be funded in a perfect world, so that everyone would be happy, but that's not reality. I am sure there are very valid arguements for all the procedures you have listed that are still funded.. even if they don't mean anything to you.

ETA: I mean absolutely no offense, and someone close IS going through these choices right now, luckily she lives in Ontario, so would it be something she chose, she would be able to do it.

Edited by ~Jill~, 16 February 2011 - 08:40 PM.


#10 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:42 PM

you know what Jill... what I am saying is this post was looking for support. This is supposed to be a SUPPORTIVE website. You don't have to agree you don't have to understand. But to need to post it or argue it on this thread is childish. If it continues I will ask it to be removed becuase clearly I cna't make a post looking for support then and state I am looking for support as the OP when I say I am looking for support it should end the debate if you want to debate it take it to hot debate & debate till your hearts content. I would bet many would agree with me & can be compassionate & caring enought to get it. Also the debate is not if they are allowing recon it is if they are allowing the less invasive less risky less expensive recon. Makes no sense to me. I hope like HELL you never have to walk in my shoes or look like me or these women and want for even just a moment to feel normal again because most certainly you don't get it!

#11 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:47 PM


No I would not say strictly for self esteem.

Look at this link 3rd row woman with traditional mastectomy:

http://www.breastpre...ing-mastectomy/

Oh & they are still covering abortion, vastectomy, tubal ligation, sex changes, & gastro. Are those vital??? What is more is they are only cutting breast recon with implants. It is the least invasive, least expensive, least risky breast recon. Why not cut the more dnagerous, more risky, more expensive ones if they HAVE to cut?? But they don't. Not when they are not cutting these other proceedures.

I chose not to ahve recon becuase right now is not the right time. It is difficult though I can't buy clothes. I hate clothes. If they have avneck I can't wear them if they ahve straps I can't wear them if they ahve a square neck I can't wear them it is very much an issue.



thank you for sharing that link. I have never saw pictures like that before, and yes I would agree that reconstruction would be vital. for anyone to think otherwise ....



your welcome! Thanks for getting it! I know sometimes it takes a visual to get it. :)

#12 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:51 PM

Seriously Jodi??? CHILL THE F OUT! I am NOT trying to piss you off, Chitter Chatter is not the place to post for just "support". I do support women with breast cancer, it hits INCREDIBLY close to home for me!!

I never said I didn't understand the need, or that I didn't THINK it should be funded. For god sakes DEEP FLIPPING BREATHS woman. I don't want a debate, I don't want to start one. The only reason I replied is to clarify what I meant and to expand on a point. You have no right to say I can't reply here, and you are seriously taking what I wrote way too far.

I too hope I never get cancer of any kinds. My children will have to be tested ALL the time because the crap is so prevalent in my family. YOu think I don't understand this? You think I don't understand what it's like to live with cancer and the devastation it can cause?? Seriously??

Have your post deleted, go right ahead if that's what you want. So far I am the ONLY person who posted anything in a different perspective, and it wasn't even in support of having the funding cut, just in a sort of depressing understanding of the way our system is forced to work.

Edited by ~Jill~, 16 February 2011 - 08:52 PM.


#13 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 08:59 PM

No Jill I KNOW you understand it. I have 16 members of my family & my kids will have to start being tested at 17 years old. So if you don't think this is close to my heart...... Which is also why you simply being resigned to something so WRONG just apalls me! We should be fighting for better treatment like those who went before us not for worse treatment options & just becuase our system sux someitmes does not mean w elay down & take it what it means is that we ahve to get up & fight & if someone like you ro I can't see that or do that then how can you EVER expect those who have never been effeted by it to get up & fight??? So yea your lack of support for this really appals me. Even if it is just in the way of yea I don't agree but oh well. Don't tell me to take DEEP FLIPPING BREATHS.... I know your FAMILY has experienced it as has mine but when it is YOU and the possibility that you may not see your children grow up that is a whole different situation. Which is soemthing only a survivor can understand!

#14 Jen.Uh.Fur

Jen.Uh.Fur

    Hopelessly devoted

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,012 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:02 PM

Thank you for the link Jodi, I was completely unaware that THAT was what they did to the breast. I couldn't imagine having to go through something so tramatic, and then having to have my body look like that and knowing I had no means of trying to make myself look like my previous self. That really saddens me.

I think it's disgusting that abortions are covered, but something like this is not. I also was unaware that vasectomy's and tubal ligations were covered! I think they really need to rethink the whole thing, and make some of those surgeries not covered.

#15 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:04 PM

You are right, "I" have never had cancer, so no, I can't understand what it's like to think I might not see my kids grow up, but I have fear my kids might not get a chance to. And I know the perspective of KNOWING a child wont have the chance, and knowing how unfair it is. So no, my first hand experiences are not the same as yours.

We are arguing in circles, it's not that I don't support these people, or that I wouldn't sign a form!! I am not saying you should lay down and let them do it, and not fight.. where and when did I EVER say that?

I am telling you to take deep breaths because you are FREAKING out on me when it's uncalled for.

#16 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:06 PM

See Jennifer this is what makes me mad. If you ahve to cut I get it cut & there are exceptions to every rule of course... having said tht cut the smaller things first that people might actually be able to pay on their own. Like vastectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, surgeries that are 99% of the time not medically necessary & totally optional & don't effect quality of life. More then that if you are going to cut breast cancer recon, cut the more expensive, more risky, harder to recover from... which acutally is the only kind I would choose because of my own struggles so I am saying cut the one I would choose over the one that more women would choose that has a better outcome less recovery & less expensive.

#17 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:15 PM

Jill I ahve those same fears & ahve witnessed those same things & fears too.

No where do you actually say that you do support these people. Yes, arguing in circles when long ago I asked for it to stop I am done arguing with u about this here or anywhere else.

#18 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:48 PM

Maybe it was in poor taste for me to post.. I didn't think of it that way when I did. I appologize for that, but never did I say that people shouldn't support these women. Never did I say you shouldn't fight.

I might not have said you SHOULD, but I certainly didn't say you shouldn't. Maybe I never said I did support them per say, but I certainly never said I didn't.

ETA: I messaged you so it wouldn't be in the open, and I could explain better, but clearly that didn't work, and now you refuse to talk there to. Again, I appologize for the bad taste, but that's all.

Edited by ~Jill~, 16 February 2011 - 09:49 PM.


#19 sherri

sherri

    Hopelessly devoted

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,413 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 10:11 PM

i just dont understand why vastectomy tubal ligation sex changes & gastro surgeries would not be cut
these are all elective surgeries
i can understand the surgeries that woman choose to do just because they want a bigger breast size etc yes you should have to pay for that but you cannot do anything to change what you look like from cancer without surgery therefore in my opionion NOT an elective surgery


i do understand about cuts but seriously there are other cuts they could do without taking this away from women who have already suffered enough

#20 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 10:51 PM

Elective just means choice, non life threatening. The alternative is life saving or necessary surgery. It can be crude in the way that it draws the line, but it's that black and white.

The more I think about it, the more I feel guilty. I know I shouldn't really, but my brain has this Catholic Guilt thing going on. I feel badly that I offended you Jodi, I really do. But I really never meant to. I didn't mean to demean the importance of this surgery, or make it seems less important than any other surgery. I really don't feel that way, I do think there are other surgeries that they could cut funding that would be more devastating, which is true, but I could have kept that to myself. I could have just not said anything, and I realize that.

I don't think the funding should be cut by any means, and I am glad I live in a province where they still fund the best option for women. My intention was never to have this develop, definitely not.

#21 sherri

sherri

    Hopelessly devoted

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,413 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 10:59 PM

Elective just means choice, non life threatening. The alternative is life saving or necessary surgery. It can be crude in the way that it draws the line, but it's that black and white.



yes i know what elective means
its not elective to have cancer and lose part of your body
it is elective to have your tubes tied or have a vasectomy
and neither of those procedures are life saving or necessary yet they are still covering them


the line can be drawn several different ways its the governments way only
thats the problem right there

#22 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 11:02 PM

Jill it is ok really it is. Calmer heads prevail..... I understand in part where you were coming from. I guess of all people I was just shocked thinking you did not support it & knwoing your family history. I get it I mean it is just like gastro not everyone beleives it should be covered & in some cases it should not & in some cases it should.... but you have to decide when to post on it is all. Also like I said my biggest frustration is the choice of recon that they took away. Even though it is not the one I would choose I don't want those women who would choose it to lose it. kwim?? Anyway no ahrd feelings & I am sorry too for jumping on you.

#23 scrappy survivor

scrappy survivor

    4 stars survivor mama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts

Posted 16 February 2011 - 11:04 PM


Elective just means choice, non life threatening. The alternative is life saving or necessary surgery. It can be crude in the way that it draws the line, but it's that black and white.



yes i know what elective means
its not elective to have cancer and lose part of your body
it is elective to have your tubes tied or have a vasectomy
and neither of those procedures are life saving or necessary yet they are still covering them


the line can be drawn several different ways its the governments way only
thats the problem right there


This exactly & vasectomy & tubal etc... they are not fixing a disfigurement. Which for single women makes dating very awkward I ahve a friend who went down this road she has never been married. She chose recon as she did not want to date / meet her future hubby looking like the woman in those pics above. If I looked like that I would ahve had recon in a heartbeat for sure! Thankfully my surgeon took pride but not all of them do!

#24 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:22 AM

But you can see how fundamentally, neither is emergency surgery.. I don't see how it should be classed that way?

My own experience can't be the only thing that drives me, especially not in my profession. No one's cross to bear is less important, and certain things are going to be more or less personal to me.

I admitted I should probably have kept it to myself and I apologized which isn't always easy, I feel maybe you don't have to be reminding me again of what I should or shouldn't have said. lol

Edited by ~Jill~, 17 February 2011 - 08:34 AM.


#25 Trea

Trea

    M2M member since Sept 2005

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,797 posts

Posted 17 February 2011 - 08:27 AM

From what I can find on this topic I can find nowhere that says the "details" have been officially released. I have found lots of speculation as to what cuts will be made but, noting official. We don't know that other, less 'essential' elective surgeries are not being cut also.

I also see the very fine line here. Breast reconstruction is, for the most part, not going to make a person "healthier". The issue is though, we don't know who having no breast(s) will affect and who it won't at the time of mastectomy. It is less costly to do the reconstruction at the time of mastectomy then it is later. So, if the woman gets severely depressed and the reconstruction becomes "medically necessary" it will cost more for that patient. Legislating that would be nearly impossible. They either have to say all or nothing.

But, again, I can find no details to prove or disprove they are cutting this. There are many different interest groups out there protesting this budget but, I find nothing official from the government about it. For ME I have to see official statements and records to even believe the rumors or "leaks". I cannot count on interest groups to give me the whole story.