# FILE NAME: 00002067.soc
# TITLE: Is it permissible to use tax-payers money to pay for healthcare for people who have chosen to have cosmetic surgery? [86e488f73d544f859d585756af788922]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. There are many reasons why elective cosmetic surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body may need to be conducted that are unrelated to vanity. However, it is necessary that this be studied further and cases be treated with care. We still suggest that cosmetic surgery of this nature easing mental qualms is a strong enough reason to fund it with taxpayer's money as they may be affecting a person's mental health but we do not wish to push an argument that is going to open up the NHS to paying for everyone who wishes for cosmetic surgery but at the same time we would like to not discourage those who genuinely are in need of mental and physical health benefits from the NHS.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as though they don't cure any physical health conditions, they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as though they don't cure any physical health conditions, they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have.  However, we would also like to point out that the NHS is greatly struggling and needs to cut back on funding unnecessary surgery.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle it is permissible to use tax-payers money to fund healthcare for people in need of both elective and required cosmetic surgery. Reconstructive surgery is essential for victims of various diseases and unfortunate circumstances, however, though they are cosmetic in nature, we believe the majority of people would agree that it is necessary that it should be covered under tax-payer healthcare. Obviously there will be some disagreement regarding elective surgery such as rhinoplasty and other augmentations of the body, however, we would still suggest that these should be covered as they don't cure any physical health conditions, but they may ease some mental qualms the person undergoing the surgery may have. Conclusion I believe that this experience makes a good case for the application of the consensus theory to problems of moral philosophy. It shows how as long as participants are able to put their biases aside and be truly objective it is possible to reach a consensual statement that is agreeable and based on clear and sufficient reasons. The ability to ground an ethical theory in both intuitions and reason, while reaching a conclusion which most will accept is truly praiseworthy. I do not see why it cannot be applied to a broader range of topics
2: 1,2,3,4
1: 3,2,1,4
1: 1,4,3,2
1: 1,3,2,4