Sun shakes its fist at 'posh wank' scandal

The Sun, which for years has prided itself on providing the UK's male population with a daily dose of bare-breasted titillation is today up in arms at some porn-related largesse within the NHS. It reports:

HEALTH chiefs blew £7,500 on a special room where patients can watch PORN.

That's upper-case "PORN" ladies and gentlemen... which as we all know is the most shocking kind.

Of course this purpose-built suite is actually a facility intended to attract and retain more sperm donors, rather than a distasteful alternative to the TV room for frustrated in-patients.  

The suite boasts computer equipment worth £4,625, flat screen TVs costing £2,225 - plus £500 of blue movies.

Having pointed out that other NHS trusts make do with a few dog-eared old magazines, The Sun then quotes rentaquote outrage engine the Tax Payers Alliance whose mission in life appears to be to put a totally one-sided, negative spin on any public expenditure (you can generate your own TPA quotes here) without even a cursory examination of the costs:

"This money could have been spent on treatment rather than on trying to improve on methods that have always worked just fine."

Some points The Sun glosses over in the name of cheap outrage and an unchecked regurgitation of the TPA's ignorant spin include:

1) The current system isn't working "just fine". In fact, according to the British Fertility Society the UK currently has a severe shortage of sperm donors and it is looking at ways to increase the numbers and thereby stem a trend of fertility tourism which sees UK couples look overseas for sperm and egg donors.  

2) The newly-opened Liverpool facility is the largest of its kind in the UK, covering Merseyside, Cheshire and North Wales, built with the intention of attracting highly profitable private patients from around the UK and worldwide who would fund the provision of NHS treatment at no additional cost to the taxpayer. As such the modest up-front investment is clearly intended to pay for itself by making the process of donating sperm more attractive. More sperm donors - literally a 'money-shot' if you will - equals more IVF treatment.

3) Only around a quarter of IVF treatment in the UK is funded by the NHS. Couples undertaking private treatment could expect to pay between £4,000 - £8,000 for a course of treatment, meaning just one couple could be enough to pay for this forward-looking facility outright. 

So, with a little research The Sun could easily have presented this as an interesting case study in how modernisation within the health sector is putting public services on a more commercial footing through investment in improving services. But that wouldn't be a good story would it. 

Comments

[Mark Wallace]

This post is based on a falsehood which is either deliberately misleading or immensely stupid. That TPA quote doesn't suggest as you claim that the sperm donor system is working "fine", it suggests that old-fashioned wanking still works - with no need for a £7,500 film room. You make an absurd leap which the actual quote doesn't support.

The reason the sperm donor system is struggling is not that they need more porn cinemas in the NHS, but that the law was changed to scrap donor anonymity.

You're evidently ideologically committed to defending this spending at all costs, even to their point where you make yourself look ridiculous.

Since you're so keen on media outlets doing "a little research", do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that this facility will attract more donors and generate more income? Market research perhaps? A business plan? Thought not.

You should be free to rant all you like, but don't pretend to do it from an informed perspective.

[Will Sturgeon]

Mark, thanks for the comment. I note you've spent the last three years working for the Tax Payers' Alliance, which may or may not have something to do with the force and tone of your defence.

However, either way you are evidently ideologically committed to defending their claims and you should be free to do so.

Thanks again for stopping by and having your say.

Best regards,

Will

[Mark Wallace]

So no reply to my actual points - says it all.

[Will Sturgeon]

Apologies Mark, given your initial tone and allegiance to the TPA it didn't strike me you wanted to actually discuss this seriously.

The irony of somebody defending the Tax Payers Alliance by demanding evidence to underpin otherwise "ridiculous" claims is not lost on me. Where was the evidence to support the claim that improved facilities could not encourage more sperm donors? Or to prove this outlay really was a waste of tax payers money?

Your point about changes in anonymity laws is valid and well made but given changing such laws is out of the hands of hospitals and fertility clinics, must we really berate any attempt they do make to modernise or implement change that is within their control?

I appreciate common sense, reason, innovation and change don't make good tabloid fodder, but this cheap courting of predictable tabloid 'outrage by numbers' does nobody any favours.