I can see that this would be a good thing for those wanting to have sex with a partner that has HIV, but nearly £5k a year so people can have unprotected sex? I guess it depends on the total cost as mentioned above. It's hard to stomach when Maternity and A&E wards are closing in rural hospitals. If it's a net gain due to savings (less infected people) it makes sense but still doesn't sit right.
NHS not funding HIV preventing drug (now ordered to fund drug by court decision)
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
What they need to do is spend money on HIV/AIDs education in Africa. Some of the things they believe over there is insane.
They make rent boys have sex with children as a cleansing ritual, one of these rent boys admitted to having it yet continued doing it because he needed the money (they don't use condoms btw). Also some believe if you have it and have sex with a virgin your cured so they go and rape children, etc.
Well they need educating on a lot tbh. They hunt albino's because they believe their blood/body parts have special powers, etc. Some parts they force them into prostitution because they wanna get jiggy with a white woman.
It's the same in other developing countries too, a lot more education would go a long way.
They make rent boys have sex with children as a cleansing ritual, one of these rent boys admitted to having it yet continued doing it because he needed the money (they don't use condoms btw). Also some believe if you have it and have sex with a virgin your cured so they go and rape children, etc.
Well they need educating on a lot tbh. They hunt albino's because they believe their blood/body parts have special powers, etc. Some parts they force them into prostitution because they wanna get jiggy with a white woman.
It's the same in other developing countries too, a lot more education would go a long way.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
why can they not use a condom? why would they want to have sex with someone who has HIV surely the partner would understand that and look for a partner that has it or let their partner have a pass.
Without getting moralistic about it it seems pretty simple, is the projected cost for treating future infections in the target group higher than the cost of prep and associated expected reduced cost of treating future infections in that group? If yes then why wouldn't you?
It's not as though people aren't being told to use condoms already, but it only takes once for any number of reasons for them not to get used, this is an extra backup for high risk groups.
86% still leaves you with almost a 1 in 6 chance it doesn't work, not odds I would bet my life on.
Also this drug is due to be off patent in 18 or so months (according to the news I heard), which brings the likelihood of cheaper generics, making it even better value.
It's not as though people aren't being told to use condoms already, but it only takes once for any number of reasons for them not to get used, this is an extra backup for high risk groups.
86% still leaves you with almost a 1 in 6 chance it doesn't work, not odds I would bet my life on.
Also this drug is due to be off patent in 18 or so months (according to the news I heard), which brings the likelihood of cheaper generics, making it even better value.
Soldato
It's not £5k a year so people can have unprotected sex.
And Maternity and A+E wards are not going to be kept open regardless of whether the NHS offer this or not.
They already offer PEP, which you take after you've been possibly exposed to HIV. That probably costs much more than PrEP ever will. The reality is that PrEP will be prescribed to a tiny amount of people (many of whom won't be gay) and the only reason this is causing an outrage is because it's been framed as a drug that will let gay men have sex all the time... as if they don't have normal lives to attend to like everyone else.
Ah, but the NHS will still be in whatever ****** contract with the main manufacturer for original RRP, because lolefficiency.
Soldato
Gastric bypass should not be funded.
Tobacco brings in considerably more more than it costs for treatment on the NHS.
Paying for blokes to go balls deep into each other. No.
Last edited:
The ratio of straight men to gay men is what, 1:10, last time I checked?
That's £40 of your monthly taxes for this one drug.
Would you be prepared personally to hand over £40 every month for this?
The figures for tobacco tax vs the cost to society are all over the place, some researchers have reached figures as high as £14Bn a year, once all costs have been accounted for - and I assume you're not suggesting that it's perfectly fine for 120k people to poison themselves to death every year, simply because the treasury "have it covered?"
On the subject of gastric bypass surgery - who are you to say whether something should or shouldn't be funded? shouldn't it be up to the doctors who are treating a patient who's dangerously overweight - to make a determination whether it'll help or not ?
Or are you basically taking the stance of "It's their fault - they pay the consequences" ?
Quoted for worst logic and maths ever.
I already pay an absolute ****** fortune in tax and national insurance, so yeah - doesn't really bother me
Also, don't forget that the actual number of gay people who'd have access to this drug would be pretty small, it would mostly be available to a minority of couples where one is HIV+ and the other is not, and would be there as an extra safeguard, I also think it would probably be given to younger more vulnerable guys who tend to sleep around and perform high risk behaviour - basically a smaller minority of the overall gay population
That is an entirely different question. We're talking about funding decisions, taken on behalf of the entire NHS for the entire country (or at least England/Wales). Treatments that have to be costed and justified financially.
I don't know about you, but the last thing I want my doctor to be thinking about when he sees me is how much the treatment will cost. That should not enter his thinking.
But it has to enter a decision-making body's thinking, and we absolutely cannot fund everything, so must make tough decisions.
It's true tho isn't it?
If one person in 10 needs £400 a month, then (ignoring the fact that the tax burden is not shared equally among all citizens), that's £40 a month of tax per person on this one drug.
The fact that some people pay less tax than average and some people pay more is not important.
One person in 10 will not need £400 a month as one person in 10 will not need the drug. It's a small section of the gay population who would want or need HIV prevention drugs. To carry forward in thought the notion that all gay men need the drug demonstrates a very superficial understanding of the issues.
It's false economy to moan about it being too expensive, and how it shouldn't be funded because we can't fund everything - simply because people from high risk groups will end up getting infected anyway - whether you like it or not.
When they do - they'll end up on a lifelong HAART treatment that costs a fortune overall, not taking into account the cost of all the extra care and work required to manage each patient - and that's just counting the people who respond well to treatment.
Prevention is surely always going to work out cheaper than trying to manage a lifelong illness.
I could say "well they should just use condoms" - most will, but for the few times they get forgotten/break/whatever it could be the only barrier preventing infection.
Way to be a complete **** about it.
I'll admit sleeping with HIV infected men is not my area of expertise. It's still a truckload of money to spend to protect people from themselves and their own bad judgement.
Caporegime
So again...why do I not get my immunisations, my food, my gym membership on the nhs if we're taking this arse wiping approach?
Soldato
Seems a waste of taxes to me and I'd rather it spent elsewhere.
£400 a month per person so someone can go bareback with a random?
A condom is a lot cheaper.
£400 a month per person so someone can go bareback with a random?
A condom is a lot cheaper.
Perhaps if HAART is so expensive, and we can't afford it, then they'll have to make a tough decision about treating HIV infected people too.
Can't magic up money for the NHS, when it's needed for things that aren't self-inflicted.
e: I'm going to be really cold here. People often mention the "Darwin awards" for people who kill themselves doing risky things. So why should we have unlimited sympathy for gay (or straight) men who have unprotected sex with partners who might be HIV infected? Or any kind of sex with people they *know* have HIV? They might not be skydiving without a parachute, but the risks are still extreme. And the outcomes preventable.
Last edited:
It's a small amount of money when it comes to healthcare costs in general, and it's such a small group of people who will need it (a minority within a minority) that the cost to the individual taxpayer will likely be pennies a month, not £40!