Can I be denied a procedure because it is "aesthetic" in the process of gender reassertion?

Not automatically. The system must differentiate between purely aesthetic interventions and procedures that, by their purpose and effects, relate to overall health and quality of life. In practical terms, interventions aimed at improving physical appearance according to subjective or social standards are considered "purely aesthetic" and are generally treated as excluded from the health benefit scheme. However, even there, exceptions may exist when the refusal compromises physical or mental health, or when it is to address consequences that affect health.

In contrast, procedures that are intended for rehabilitation, functional recovery or protection of physical and emotional well-being (for example, when they seek to restore anatomical or physiological functions, prevent significant impairment or address psychological impacts) are recognised as part of the core of the right to health when there is clinical justification. This logic is useful for gender-affirming care: if the procedure is linked to the effective enjoyment of the right to health and quality of life (and not just beautification), the EPS should not reduce it to "aesthetic" in order to deny it.