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

Screeeech said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course, we might consider whether or not treating people with HIV is a sensible thing to do in the first place. :/

Treating sick people carrying an incurable disease to allow them to live longer may not actually be the best long term public health strategy (Particularly in poorer societies)

Of course, Cue the inevitable outrage, But just think about it for a moment.
 
I've decided to embrace a fast food diet (nothing other than burgers, pizzas and fried chicken). When my waist goes from a 32 to a 38, who will fund my new wardrobe?
 
#RealGDresponse
"This money could be better spent on deporting foreigners and exterminating homosexuals."

I understand why this is optional in the US and N. America through private health insurance but on the NHS is a complete insult to British taxpayers really.

Im usually quite liberal on these matters but this one seems a bit too far. Maybe all junkies and Essex girls should be on this too ?
 
glen8 said:
I've decided to embrace a fast food diet (nothing other than burgers, pizzas and fried chicken). When my waist goes from a 32 to a 38, who will fund my new wardrobe?
Click to expand...

I was going to say something similar.

I'm sure there are drugs that can help stop you metabolising fat and sugar. Why don't they preemptively give these to every citizen in high-risk groups? Surely that's a better cost-benefit analysis reward ?:D
 
I want a super model brothel making available on the NHS (funded by the tax payer), each one is checked over for STDs. Surely that would be cheaper?

:edit: Actually they are £400 per hour so maybe not
:edit1: Nope, 60mins in an hour = 4 x 15mins = £100 a time. Three times a month = £300

I've just saved the NHS £100 a month!
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if cigs are taxed enough to break even. Might be, might not be. Someone else should comment. They should be

But if everyone starts using it the cost is going to go up considerably.
What if everyone starts using it in place of condoms which you have to buy.
Only a small percentage of those who use it wou get hiv so you can't say that 400 a month saves x because every one of those who use it wou get hiv

And it's not as if condoms don't exist is it.
This isnt a case of 'you can't have sex due to chance of hiv' it's you can't have unprotected sex because if hiv

And tbh if you are sleeping around with random people unprotected you're pretty irresponsible Gay or not
 
Last edited:
Brizzles said:
I disagree, in this case, with funding a precaution when there already is a perfectly workable precaution available at a fraction of the price - Condoms.
Click to expand...

I was going to post this, doesn't make sense for a publicly funded organisation to go with the more expensive and less effective option.
 
albert said:
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...
Click to expand...

Indeed, I also think anyone who rides a horse, or who is injured playing football, or in an at fault car accident, should pay for their own treatment.

They knew the risks when they participated in such activities.

The minorities eh, do gooders helping people and such, disgraceful.
 
And if unprotected sex with random people is what you do for fun, fund the protection of yourself against its.
I shouldn't have to pay for that
 
Orionaut said:
Of course, we might consider whether or not treating people with HIV is a sensible thing to do in the first place. :/

Treating sick people carrying an incurable disease to allow them to live longer may not actually be the best long term public health strategy (Particularly in poorer societies)

Of course, Cue the inevitable outrage, But just think about it for a moment.
Click to expand...

This is simpleton stuff.

Anybody with a reasonable IQ would understand that withdrawing treatment for people with HIV, "simply because it's incurable" would cause utter chaos and cause untold amounts of unnecessary suffering - it's worth remembering that people with HIV on treatment nowadays actually end up "outliving" the disease, and those on treatment are far less likely to pass on the disease to uninfected individuals.

People with AIDS don't just die - it takes years of terrible degeneration before they succumb to basic illnesses such as pneumonia, can you imagine the amount of pain and suffering that would occur if such an idea was put into action? can you even begin to imagine not just the financial cost of having to deal with all of it - but the human cost ?
 
dirtychinchilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't prove that those things caused the cancer. They increase the risk certainly.
You can prove that by engaging in sexual activities without protection that it caused hiv.
Wanna make any more dumb comparisons in your ever expanding attempt to justify lack of personal responsibility?
 
Brizzles said:
I disagree, in this case, with funding a precaution when there already is a perfectly workable precaution available at a fraction of the price - Condoms.
Click to expand...

If you are having unprotected sex, Condoms don't come into it. Who are we to tell people what to do with their sex lives. I believe in freedom, that means freedom for everyone including people doing things I think are risky or unpleasant myself.
 
Dis86 said:
You can't prove that those things caused the cancer. They increase the risk certainly.
You can prove that by engaging in sexual activities without protection that it caused hiv.
Wanna make any more dumb comparisons in your ever expanding attempt to justify lack of personal responsibility?
Click to expand...

You going to tell me it'll be cheaper to fund investigations into when someone caught HIV and what protections they were using at the time and proving it was then, and not a time a condom accidentally broke, than just helping people not get it in the first place?
 
hurfdurf said:
If you are having unprotected sex, Condoms don't come into it. Who are we to tell people what to do with their sex lives. I believe in freedom, that means freedom for everyone including people doing things I think are risky or unpleasant myself.
Click to expand...

But then why should society pay the price? You and I are not free to say we won't pay for someone who makes stupid choices or is just too lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom