You can absolutely prove that these things cause cancer.
Especially skin cancers, and cancers caused by things like Asbestosis (the clue is in the name)
(Source - someone close to me, who's a consultant chest specialist)
NHS not funding HIV preventing drug (now ordered to fund drug by court decision)
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
You can absolutely prove that these things cause cancer.
Especially skin cancers, and cancers caused by things like Asbestosis (the clue is in the name)
(Source - someone close to me, who's a consultant chest specialist)
That is slightly different from a blanket take risks get consequences stance though.
You are right that condoms are a perfectly workable alternative but it is one a particular sub group are already ignoring. The Gay community is well aware of the risks so education doesn't seem to be of use in this case. So we are stuck with paying for an expensive drug (might be short term depending on how long until generics will be available) or keep letting them take risks and accept the cost of treating HIV.
Where do you draw the line on what is a stupid choice and what isn't?
As I've already said, it's very easy not to get it. Don't stick your wick in someone. It is that simple.
I can safely say in 15 years of having sex I've never had one break or malfunction on me. The chances of it happening must be tiny!
However in the situation that it breaks...well that's a crappy situation to be in and what drugs like this are for. However the system is entirely open to abuse. We're just going to see morons who are too stupid or lazy to attempt to use protection relying on the rest of us to keep them alive
I'm not telling anyone, but when i'm expected to pay for it, via taxes, then i have a voice on the matter.
Take away the NHS part of the equation.
Would someone in a high risk HIV category pay £400 a month out of their own pocket or buy condoms ?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
it's not a cure it's a reducer, they should fund themselves at that price.
It would be a different story if it stopped it completely and wasn't a recurring expense, but that's not the case.
It would be a different story if it stopped it completely and wasn't a recurring expense, but that's not the case.
I heard a guy on radio 5 live this morning talking about this, he said, he lives in an area of London and the odds of having HIV are 1 in 7 for gay men in that area.
Someone said to him on the show, why not just use a condom? His answer, it is not always practical and not everyone carries them around.
I was driving and didn't take it all in but i am pretty sure he said he buys it direct from India for £45 a month, i could be wrong though, but he also did say that it wasn't fair he had to risk buying from a source outside his own country.
So, somebody presenting with HIV infection turns up at your clinic, and you have to make a decision whether or not to give treatment, based on whether or not the person was acting responsibly or not...
"Did you use a condom"
"Yeah it broke!"
"Ah I see"
In such a scenario, how on earth would you actually know - if the person was lying or told the truth?
"Did you use a condom"
"Yeah it broke!"
"Ah I see"
In such a scenario, how on earth would you actually know - if the person was lying or told the truth?
Fnnarr-fnnarr....
They'll get this treatment FREE unless they smoke, because smokers deserve all they get, they know it's bad for them but they still do it anyway so no funding for you if you want the bum fun but you smoke.
Where have all the sane people gone?
So do you have a voice on the matter when it comes to paying for someone who has smoked and gets lung cancer? What about when someone breaks their ankle playing football?
Why does a particular kind of sex suddenly mean you get a say?
Willingly engaging in an activity that has a high probability of causing the spread of a fatal disease is pretty stupid in my book.
Please don't post realistic real world scenarios in this thread, you will confuse and enrage the moral outrage bandits riding around on their high horses.
As does willingly engaging in boxing, football and rugby is an activity that has a high probability of causing injury, are they too pretty stupid?
They have health benefits and there's a difference between injury and death. You do understand that don't you?
Also you playing boxing, rugby or football isn't likely to result in the death of another. You being hiv positive can lead to giving a death sentence to another human being.
You wouldn't. And what this ruling has done is give a group of people a carte blanche to pass their decisions and the consequences on to the state.
This is a preventative drug so the arguments about after contracting HIV are pointless.
"Did you wear your seatbelt during the car crash? No then we cant treat your head injuries." << Its not that argument.
NO ONE Moral and human would argue that once you have X disease or X illness you shouldn't be treated, ideally with the best drugs and medicine money can afford.
"Did you wear your seatbelt during the car crash? No then we cant treat your head injuries." << Its not that argument.
NO ONE Moral and human would argue that once you have X disease or X illness you shouldn't be treated, ideally with the best drugs and medicine money can afford.
Breaking your ankle whilst playing football, would be classed as an accident, and is a feeble arguement
And, as an ex-smoker, if i develop lung cancer then i would accept that it is from my own doing. I made the choice to smoke,i knew the risks.
You could always move to another country? You'd probably fit in quite well in Saudi Arabia with your enlightened views.
I'm not entirely sure people having unprotected sex are setting out to get HIV either so could possibly be classed as an accident too.
Will you refuse treatment if you do get cancer?
So if that happens you'll just say to the GP "nah mate, please don't treat me, I wouldn't want to be a burden on my fellow taxpayers."
Utter nonsense.