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

[Hiijinx]

Cost aside, is HIV still labeled as a mainly gay disease?! I thought this was long proven to be equally suspectable in either sex.

Education will always be the first step for me but knowing some people just don't care/listen, it's good to have a failsafe.

£400 a month doesn't sound so bad when you think in xxx years time, we could all be HIV positive and kicking ourselves we did not intervene when given the chance.

 

[Dis86]

Cost aside, is HIV still labeled as a mainly gay disease?! I thought this was long proven to be equally suspectable in either sex.

£400 a month doesn't sound so bad when you think in xxx years time, we could all be HIV positive and kicking ourselves we did not intervene when given the chance.

It sounds ridiculous when a condom that costs pennies or self control that is free can prevent it entirely.

 

[Felon]

Education will always be the first step for me but knowing some people just don't care/listen, it's good to have a failsafe.

£400 a month doesn't sound so bad when you think in xxx years time, we could all be HIV positive and kicking ourselves we did not intervene when given the chance.

Yeah I'd probably agree with that..

Considering the cost of bailing out millions of obese people, smokers and drinkers every year - all of which are of course, totally preventable - it seems a bit weird to be demonising a treatment which could actually prevent some people from getting infections. Especially considering that £400 to prevent infection, is a drop in the ocean compared to treating some of totally preventable diseases above, with things like long drawn out cancer treatment costing £10s of thousands - all of which we pay for without batting an eyelid.

 

[Xordium]

Yeah I'd probably agree with that..

Considering the cost of bailing out millions of obese people, smokers and drinkers every year - all of which are of course, totally preventable - it seems a bit weird to be demonising a treatment which could actually prevent some people from getting infections. Especially considering that £400 to prevent infection, is a drop in the ocean compared to treating some of totally preventable diseases above, with things like long drawn out cancer treatment costing £10s of thousands - all of which we pay for without batting an eyelid.

And there is merit in that argument but the problem then it becomes a big race to the lowest common denominator and we know we can't afford all of these treatments.

Bevan never meant for this - the NHS is not designed for this - the NHS can't afford this - and the majority of society are not willing to pay for this.

There needs to be a fundamental rethink in how we do all of these things.

The safety net society provides was designed to catch you if you fell not support you for your life whilst you bounce around on it like a ****ing chimpanzee.

 

[NeilF]

Yeah I'd probably agree with that..

Considering the cost of bailing out millions of obese people, smokers and drinkers every year - all of which are of course, totally preventable - it seems a bit weird to be demonising a treatment which could actually prevent some people from getting infections. Especially considering that £400 to prevent infection, is a drop in the ocean compared to treating some of totally preventable diseases above, with things like long drawn out cancer treatment costing £10s of thousands - all of which we pay for without batting an eyelid.

The treatments for obesity and smoking and drinkers is typically to help/cure them... Not promote/endorse the activity?

ie: Take "Pret" and surely you're giving a sense of safety thus increasing the behaviour and increasing the risk?

Spend a fraction of the money educating...

 

[Jono]

“The idea is to give it to uninfected men who are having unprotected sex with other men”

This shouldn't be funded by the public. Wear a condom **Snip**, or whatever.

 

[Felon]

The treatments for obesity and smoking and drinkers is typically to help/cure them... Not promote/endorse the activity?

I wouldn't say that the HIV pill is promoting or endorsing risky sexual activity, such as unprotected anal sex - it's simply providing an effective safeguard for people who are in a higher risk group, who simply want to go out and have some fun. Lets face it - sex is fun and human nature is human nature, things are always going to happen, whether a condom fails or people are being reckless and going bareback - no matter what safeguards or education you put in place, it's just reality playing out.

It's also worth pointing out that the cost of the prevention pill at £400 would be drastically cheaper than the cost of a full life-long HIV HAART treatment plan, and it almost certainly would prevent infection from occurring in many cases.

 

[Felon]

This shouldn't be funded by the public. Wear a condom if you want to bum AIDS-riddled individuals, or whatever.

rofl

Why should the public fund gastric bypass surgery at £10k a go for people with no self control ?

Why should the public fund insanely expensive cancer treatment, for people who poison themselves to the brink of death with tobacco, despite the millions spent on education and warnings

If you're going to come to the analysis that treatment should only ever be provided on the NHS, for sensible people who never made a bad choice, or never made a mistake - half the population would be dead or dying.

 

[413x]

rofl

Why should the public fund gastric bypass surgery at £10k a go for people with no self control ?

Why should the public fund insanely expensive cancer treatment, for people who poison themselves to the brink of death with tobacco, despite the millions spent on education and warnings

If you're going to come to the analysis that treatment should only ever be provided on the NHS, for sensible people who never made a bad choice, or never made a mistake - half the population would be dead or dying.

This is the problem.
The NHS can't fund everything and it can't fund nothing.

NHS will end up private eventually
400 a month? I think it should be paid for by the individual myself
Just as (in public funded health service) things that cause harm by choice.. Cigarettes.. Should be taxed so much as to cover the costs

 

[RaohNS]

Drugs such as these are never cheap.

I don't agree with this as a premise to be honest. Things I do agree with are high cost drugs that save people where alternatives are not available. An elderly gentleman at local pub was only alive because of a new drug that cost £300+ per tablet. The condition was that for x amount of time after he died the local Uni/Medical School could keep his body to look at its effects. That's the sort of drug I would be in favour of.

 

[Felon]

This is the problem.
The NHS can't fund everything and it can't fund nothing.

NHS will end up private eventually
400 a month? I think it should be paid for by the individual myself
Just as (in public funded health service) things that cause harm by choice.. Cigarettes.. Should be taxed so much as to cover the costs

If that individual gets infected, that £400 a month you would have spent on prevention, is transformed into a lifelong HAART treatment plan at god knows how much money, not just in drugs but in ongoing medical care and consultation, for the reminder of the life of the individual.

Cigarettes are already taxed to high heaven, but 120k people still die every year in the UK - which isn't exactly value for money in terms of taxation, whichever way to choose to look at it.

 

[Xordium]

NHS can fund it according to the court. So I guess it's all a moot point at the end of the day. But whether they will is another thing entirely.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

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?

This is a great argument. Let's stop people who smoke having treatment for lung cancer. Oh you like tanning? You can't have treatment for skin cancer. Obese, we can't help you, just go die in your bed. Complications from Asbestos...should have done a different job.

Ridiculous. People have choices. If they can have a drug that reduces the chance of a life threatening disease, then they should have that drug.

 

[Jono]

rofl

Why should the public fund gastric bypass surgery at £10k a go for people with no self control ?

I don't think it should.

 

[glenimp617]

I'm amazed at how little my knowledge on HIV/AIDS is

so you can only get aids by having anal sex with men?
and 90% is better than 99.9%?

damn, and I was thinking I had some kind of intelligence

 

[Xordium]

This is a great argument. Let's stop people who smoke having treatment for lung cancer. Oh you like tanning? You can't have treatment for skin cancer. Obese, we can't help you, just go die in your bed. Complications from Asbestos...should have done a different job.

Ridiculous. People have choices. If they can have a drug that reduces the chance of a life threatening disease, then they should have that drug.

I totally agree! So are you willing to pay the necessary taxation to ensure that happens for everyone?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Yes I am willing to pay to help people live.

 

[Xordium]

Yes I am willing to pay to help people live.

Well that wasn't the question was it - we are all happy to help pay for people to live - the question is to what extent. That there is the problem.

Would you be happy to pay what it takes even if that meant you personally went without and had to re-adjust your life etc.

 

[glenimp617]

Right, I'm going to bust a few myths

Healthline:

"This doesn't mean that men can't get HIV from having sex with women—they can. HIV is also in vaginal fluid, and any open sores on the penis can be a gateway for an infection. Also, men who are uncircumcised are more at risk than circumcised men of contracting HIV."

Factsaboutcondoms:

"When used consistently and correctly, condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy and are the only form of birth control that also can prevent STIs.3,7,8 This is why it's important to follow directions for correct use."

BBC News article from OP:

"Using Prep has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection by more than 90%."

marshu.com:

http://www.marshu.com/articles/calc...ce-between-percent-percentages-calculator.php

Using the above calculation, the usage of a condom is 8.88% more effective than the NHS drug (since this was an online calculation, I obviously tried to use BODMAS so my sums may not be entirely correct)

Pack of 12 Condoms - £9.99
http://www.superdrug.com/Durex/Dure...zx0gJH5sh1iJ8sn4ejrZrRoCip_w_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Again using the BBC artcie - £400

"The once-a-day pill, which costs £400 a month per person, works by disabling the virus to stop it multiplying"

The Telegraph - National Sex Survey (3 times a month) - THAT MUCH!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/se...ese-crazed-sexpots-Are-they-Scandinavian.html

My awesome calculation

(£9.99 / 12) x 3 = £2.49
£400 - £2.49 = £397.51 per month saving
£397.51 x 12 = £4,770.12 a year saving

 

[albert]

Absolute disgrace. Why should I/we have to pay £400 out of our taxes to someone that is so stupid because they can't take responsibility for their own sex lives? Hedonistic parties and clubs await as, yet again, the minorities have won again...