Motion OU Debate Club - Taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS - Proposition
Sunday 4 October 2026 at 11:04
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Frederique Lanoix, Sunday 4 October 2026 at 11:16
15th April 2024 - Motion OU Debate Club - Taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS
Proposition
The NHS has been treating the nation for 76 years. It aims to care for everyone indiscriminately. But today, the lack of funding makes it hard for doctors, nurses, and other health professionals to do their jobs in a cost-effective way. This is due to the high number of unnecessary treatments covered by the NHS. My argument today will cover how Taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS.
The point I want to make today, madame/ mister chair, is that the NHS is in crisis because it has been underfunded for the past 14 years, which has created a vast range of issues that led us to today’s debate. Indeed, madame/mister chair, the NHS needs to fully eliminate the financial burden of dealing with breast enlargement, rhinoplasty, puberty blockers, or hair implants, for example. Indeed, the stats regarding funding within the NHS are shocking. According to the organisation Health Funding, the NHS has been inefficiently funded for so long under the Tory governments that the money allocated to face the Covid-19 pandemic has not changed the fact that our health system is crumbling. According to The Guardian, the Tory party is trying to push people into health poverty by underfunding the NHS so that patients will run into the private sector. This means that taxpayers must suffer the consequences of a deeply rooted ideological government which fails to invest in people’s health. We need a better plan for the NHS. A long-term plan which works for the many, and this is why the taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS.
So, the treatments labelled non-essential, Madame Chair, are those that the patients are not required to take to treat a condition that could cost them their lives, leave them handicapped, or leave them with some sort of psychological dysfunction. What I am referring to are the treatments that a patient does not fundamentally need to live a healthy life. This raises the question of what is being healthy? For example, one does not need a breast enlargement or hair implants to live healthily. It is understandable that a person who wants to have bigger breasts or have hair implants may be suffering from other issues. However, those treatments are not necessary, urgent, or priceless for the taxpayers. The same goes for other treatments such as skin bleaching for people who have a non-threatening skin condition, for example. In 2018, The Guardian said that the health service had hoped to save £200m a year by reducing risky or unnecessary procedures.If those procedures are not helping the patients to keep healthy, they should not be performed.
This is why, the NHS needs to refocus on what is important and today what is crucial is to lessen the burden of financing non-essential treatments for taxpayers. The NHS is here to help patients in receiving the health care that they need. Thus, guidance on what non-essential treatments are must be developed further first, just like the NHS does for complementary and alternative medicines. This is to determine if non-essential treatments should be accessed under certain conditions. It is a matter of allocating the right treatment, at the right time, to the right person so that spending is comprehensive in that they serve the purpose of helping the NHS to perform better.So, when Ms Atkins, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said that the government is “spending record amounts on the NHS” on the BBC on the 10th April 2024, it seems unbelievably disconnected from what the public needs regarding health care spending. If the government is serious about spending effectively in terms of health care, the non-essential treatments must be considered obsolete because this is where savings can be made in a sensible way. This is not a cut that will increase waiting list or sanction the health care professionals. On the contrary, this will help the NHS perform better, faster, and lessen the burden for taxpayers.
To conclude, the fact that this government has not been able to fund the NHS in a way that can keep patients’ health in the forefront whilst making sure that spending is efficiently provided has created the fertile ground to find innovative solutions to reduce the burden of non-essential treatments. For far too long, taxpayers have been funding those treatments. It is time to get rid of those unnecessary costs within the NHS.
Motion OU Debate Club - Taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS - Proposition
15th April 2024 - Motion OU Debate Club - Taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS
Proposition
The NHS has been treating the nation for 76 years. It aims to care for everyone indiscriminately. But today, the lack of funding makes it hard for doctors, nurses, and other health professionals to do their jobs in a cost-effective way. This is due to the high number of unnecessary treatments covered by the NHS. My argument today will cover how Taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS.
The point I want to make today, madame/ mister chair, is that the NHS is in crisis because it has been underfunded for the past 14 years, which has created a vast range of issues that led us to today’s debate. Indeed, madame/mister chair, the NHS needs to fully eliminate the financial burden of dealing with breast enlargement, rhinoplasty, puberty blockers, or hair implants, for example. Indeed, the stats regarding funding within the NHS are shocking. According to the organisation Health Funding, the NHS has been inefficiently funded for so long under the Tory governments that the money allocated to face the Covid-19 pandemic has not changed the fact that our health system is crumbling. According to The Guardian, the Tory party is trying to push people into health poverty by underfunding the NHS so that patients will run into the private sector. This means that taxpayers must suffer the consequences of a deeply rooted ideological government which fails to invest in people’s health. We need a better plan for the NHS. A long-term plan which works for the many, and this is why the taxpayers should not bear the burden of financing non-essential treatments within the NHS.
So, the treatments labelled non-essential, Madame Chair, are those that the patients are not required to take to treat a condition that could cost them their lives, leave them handicapped, or leave them with some sort of psychological dysfunction. What I am referring to are the treatments that a patient does not fundamentally need to live a healthy life. This raises the question of what is being healthy? For example, one does not need a breast enlargement or hair implants to live healthily. It is understandable that a person who wants to have bigger breasts or have hair implants may be suffering from other issues. However, those treatments are not necessary, urgent, or priceless for the taxpayers. The same goes for other treatments such as skin bleaching for people who have a non-threatening skin condition, for example. In 2018, The Guardian said that the health service had hoped to save £200m a year by reducing risky or unnecessary procedures. If those procedures are not helping the patients to keep healthy, they should not be performed.
This is why, the NHS needs to refocus on what is important and today what is crucial is to lessen the burden of financing non-essential treatments for taxpayers. The NHS is here to help patients in receiving the health care that they need. Thus, guidance on what non-essential treatments are must be developed further first, just like the NHS does for complementary and alternative medicines. This is to determine if non-essential treatments should be accessed under certain conditions. It is a matter of allocating the right treatment, at the right time, to the right person so that spending is comprehensive in that they serve the purpose of helping the NHS to perform better. So, when Ms Atkins, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said that the government is “spending record amounts on the NHS” on the BBC on the 10th April 2024, it seems unbelievably disconnected from what the public needs regarding health care spending. If the government is serious about spending effectively in terms of health care, the non-essential treatments must be considered obsolete because this is where savings can be made in a sensible way. This is not a cut that will increase waiting list or sanction the health care professionals. On the contrary, this will help the NHS perform better, faster, and lessen the burden for taxpayers.
To conclude, the fact that this government has not been able to fund the NHS in a way that can keep patients’ health in the forefront whilst making sure that spending is efficiently provided has created the fertile ground to find innovative solutions to reduce the burden of non-essential treatments. For far too long, taxpayers have been funding those treatments. It is time to get rid of those unnecessary costs within the NHS.
Reference:
· NHS England » NHS England action to stop patients undergoing ineffective and risky treatments
· NHS England: life in 'no man's land' on the waiting list (youtube.com)
· NHS wields the axe on 17 'unnecessary procedures' | NHS | The Guardian
· Complementary and alternative medicine - NHS (www.nhs.uk)
· National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
· Alexander technique for Parkinson's disease
· Health funding data analysis (bma.org.uk)
· How the Tory party has systematically run down the NHS | Letters | The Guardian
· Listen: Health secretary Victoria Atkins clashes with BBC’s Nick Robinson over NHS spending (msn.com)