NHS not funding HIV preventing drug (now ordered to fund drug by court decision)

[NeilF]

So "Prep" is a preventative drug in the shape of a daily pill that reduces the chance of being infected by HIV by about 90% - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36946000

So the notion is to give it to give it to, "uninfected men who are having unprotected sex with other men."

It costs £400 a month!


Question: How much do condoms cost?

Are we really turning into this much of a nanny state that we can't expect individuals to take any responsibility?

 

[Bear]

So "Prep" is a preventative drug in the shape of a daily pill that reduces the chance of being infected by HIV by about 90% - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36946000

So the notion is to give it to give it to, "uninfected men who are having unprotected sex with other men."

It costs £400 a month!


Question: How much do condoms cost?

Are we really turning into this much of a nanny state that we can't expect individuals to take any responsibility?

I think the argument was that the cost of the drugs for treating someone with HIV/AIDS was far higher, so preventing them catching it to begin with would be cheaper in the long run.

You are right though, people should take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. I would question those that were knowingly stupid enough to have unprotected sex in the first place, knowing the risk and still carried on deserves any treatment at all.

 

[Brizzles]

Whilst i agree with you, i'm sure some liberal will come along and say that £400 a month is cheaper than treating someone with HIV - Therefore justifying it.

Don't want to smash your face through a windscreen ? - Wear a seatbelt

Take some responsibilty for your own lifestyle.

 

[d_brennen]

Idiots who go about shagging strangers may be 90% less likely to contract HIV but can you trust said people to take a daily pill?

 

[Angilion]

I think the argument was that the cost of the drugs for treating someone with HIV/AIDS was far higher, so preventing them catching it to begin with would be cheaper in the long run.

You are right though, people should take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. I would question those that were knowingly stupid enough to have unprotected sex in the first place, knowing the risk and still carried on deserves any treatment at all.

The financial argument for funding it sounds flimsy to me, for two reasons:

1) Is the cost of providing the drug that reduces (not prevents) the chance of being infected to all of the intended people actually lower than the cost of treating just those who would otherwise been infected with HIV?

2) Would the drug being available free of charge to the people taking it actually reduce the number of people being infected anyway? It will probably increase the risk of exposure as a result of people taking it also taking more exposure risks. It doesn't prevent infection. It's not a vaccine.

 

[ChroniC]

Aren't the chances of contracting hiv from one nightstands remarkably low, and contracting it from someone who is a regular partner through Sex about 1/500.
I think it's a myth it's as easily passed during intercourse and the cast majority of cases are through direct blood contact, I.e needles and transfusion.

Would this then only be used for partners of diagnosed Hiv people or habitual drug users?

 

[Brizzles]

Aren't the chances of contracting hiv from one nightstands remarkably low, and contracting it from someone who is a regular partner through Sex about 1/500.
I think it's a myth it's as easily passed during intercourse and the cast majority of cases are through direct blood contact, I.e needles and transfusion.

Would this then only be used for partners of diagnosed Hiv people or habitual drug users?

The article linked only sited that it would make a gay mans lifestyle easier, no mention of intravenous drug use or blood contamination.

An extremely onesided, and selfish, opinion when there is already a precaution you could take.

 

[delta0]

Condoms are cheaper and are 100% effective unlike this drug.

 

[Xordium]

This is the other side of why the NHS is at breaking point (the first side being governmental underfunding). The NHS was developed to create a healthy and productive working population - not to support irresponsible lifestyle choices.

We should not be supporting and encouraging anyone in doing overly risky behaviours that have no tangible positive benefits. There is a health sum benefit to active sports for a population even if there is a risk of injury for some. There is no health sum benefit to this or a whole load of other stupid things we seem to want to sanction these days.

 

[Dis86]

Condoms are cheaper and are 100% effective unlike this drug.

Condoms aren't quite 100% effective.

Not porking chaps in the pooper is free and completely effective however.

As has been said, the nhs isn't there to treat people who take unnecessary risks which posses no benefit. This being one of them.

 

[NeilF]

Condoms aren't quite 100% effective.

Not porking chaps in the pooper is free and completely effective however.

As has been said, the nhs isn't there to treat people who take unnecessary risks which posses no benefit. This being one of them.

Let's see how the Judge sees it when he decides if we need to pay for it...

 

[Firestar_3x]

This is the other side of why the NHS is at breaking point (the first side being governmental underfunding). The NHS was developed to create a healthy and productive working population - not to support irresponsible lifestyle choices.

We should not be supporting and encouraging anyone in doing overly risky behaviours that have no tangible positive benefits. There is a health sum benefit to active sports for a population even if there is a risk of injury for some. There is no health sum benefit to this or a whole load of other stupid things we seem to want to sanction these days.

Whilst i agree to a point, however:

Is paying for this drug cheaper than deal with the long term cost associated with treating an ever expanding number of HIV patients?

 

[NeilF]

Is paying for this drug cheaper than deal with the long term cost associated with treating an ever expanding number of HIV patients?

Understood, but why promote the risky activity - Take this magic pill and off you go! Will offering such a drug increase/decrease such activity? Will more/less individuals end up trying to take it. Will individuals participate in such activity even more frequently, exposing themselves and other to greater risk of HIV and indeed other diseases...

And it's an activity that can be made nigh on 100% safe using far cheaper methods such as condoms, or simply not doing it (reducing it).

So it's the tip of a needless iceberg IMHO.

Use condoms and be safer. Spend that valuable money elsewhere!

 

[gandhi]

I know some people who already use Prep as a form of protection. They are generally on the more promiscuous side of the gay scene and indulge in all sorts of stuff that I won't mention here but suffice to say, wearing condoms is very frowned on in those circles.

When you mix drugs, alcohol, risky sexual practices and a sense of reckless endangerment bad things can happen.

Of course, people indulging in these things should wear condoms, but it's not always as cut and dried as you might think/believe.

Men can be ***** sometimes. One of my friends has HIV now as a result.

 

[Xordium]

Is paying for this drug cheaper than deal with the long term cost associated with treating an ever expanding number of HIV patients?

Maybe it is maybe it isn't but that isn't the point - we should not be supporting but stopping risky and stupid behaviours.

When the NHS is not giving treatment effectively and quickly to people across the board then I don't we should be condoning and supporting people partaking in irresponsible unprotected chemsex. And let's face it this is only one of the problems associated with that type of behaviour.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

So "Prep" is a preventative drug in the shape of a daily pill that reduces the chance of being infected by HIV by about 90% - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36946000

So the notion is to give it to give it to, "uninfected men who are having unprotected sex with other men."

It costs £400 a month!


Question: How much do condoms cost?

Are we really turning into this much of a nanny state that we can't expect individuals to take any responsibility?

NHS in sensible deciscion shock.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Condoms aren't quite 100% effective.

Not porking chaps in the pooper is free and completely effective however.

As has been said, the nhs isn't there to treat people who take unnecessary risks which posses no benefit. This being one of them.

So are you saying that people should just stop having anal sex? Really?

 

[MooMoo444]

If it's only 90% effective then it's a failure in my eyes. You're still at risk, so what's the benefit of it? Would you have sex with someone who has HIV and play the lottery on the 10%? Who would do that?

Until they make something 100%, it's not worth the money.

 

[Kuros]

Honestly, I think the money would be better spent on education of condoms and making them seem acceptable within certain circles.

I remember at university free condoms being handed out at the gay pubs/clubs and not many people would actually take them.

 

[Dis86]

So are you saying that people should just stop having anal sex? Really?

So are you saying people should continue to engage in unsafe sexual practices and expect the rest of society to bail them out when they get a serious disease? Really?