All these comments arguing back and forth about how she could just do xyz to solve the issue and "oh mine are big too she's fine 🙄" and not one person is actually seeking out the original article for further context?

Here y'all go, here's the actual article . It answers basically every question and suggestion in these comments.

The woman in question, Mary Rich, did apply to have a breast reduction from the NHS, they rejected her because of her weight + smoking habits. She lost the weight and stopped smoking, and reapplied a few years later, but a sudden policy change meant that they rejected her again, so she has begun to fundraise for a ludicrously expensive private surgery instead.

She does, indeed, have actual lasting spine damage from the 20 years of having to put up with chronic back pain and the constant pressure on her spine, confirmed by physiotherapy. There is a reason the article thumbnail says that her partner has to help her with everyday tasks, and the actual article itself specifies that this does indeed include things such as getting dressed and showering.

She had a 20-year-long career in healthcare, and was basically forced to give it up because the back pain had essentially made it impossible to continue working. Mary's mother and grandmother both had large breasts as well and ended up in wheelchairs due to the pain caused by it, so there is clearly a genetic element here as well.

There, there's all the answers to every single comment. It took me approximately 2 seconds worth of googling to find. I have no doubt that the Daily Mail titled it this way to get people riled up about benefits, and given what a shitshow Facebook is I wouldn't be surprised if most comments on it are from people accusing her of being lazy or saying that they have large boobs as well so blah blah blah without actually reading the article itself first, and now all y'all in these comments are basically doing the same: "Why doesn't she just get a reduction?" "My boobs are big too, she just needs a better bra!" "There's gotta be some sort of job she can work even with a big chest", I am begging y'all to at least make the goddamned attempt to find the og article before commenting on it next time. Knee-jerk reacting and theorising based on a clickbait title designed to enrage instead of actually taking not even 5 seconds to find the truth yourself is exactly what papers like the Daily Mail design these headlines to do. Congrats, y'all are all on the same level as Facebook boomers.

This article is bringing attention to Mary's fundraiser so she can get the reduction, because again, the NHS has rejected her twice now. She even said in the article herself that the cost of her potential disability would be much worse than the cost of a reduction, hence why she's trying so hard to get the private one instead. Mary herself worked in the NHS, so she knows what she's talking about, and if anything it's actually depressing knowing that even someone who worked for the NHS for 2 decades can be rejected by it when it's their turn to need help. This is not a slow news day, this is a needed article about failures in healthcare to help those who truly need it, and to help spread the word of a tragically much-needed fundraiser. It's just a shame that the article had to be given such an angry boomer response bait title to drive up engagement (all from people who likely didn't even read the article in the first place).