tree house tam Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 This really is a non starter on the NHS or at least it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 If the point of the NHS is to only provide drugs on the basis of a morality play or to punish risky behaviour then fatties and smokers shouldn't be treated at all. Which would clear up lots of money for treating preventable diseases caused by viruses like HIV, rather than mitigating for an adult's inability to pass a cream cake without stuffing it down their disgusting throat. Problem solved; you're welcome P&B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, vikingTON said: If the point of the NHS is to only provide drugs on the basis of a morality play or to punish risky behaviour then fatties and smokers shouldn't be treated at all. Which would clear up lots of money for treating preventable diseases caused by viruses like HIV, rather than mitigating for an adult's inability to pass a cream cake without stuffing it down their disgusting throat. Problem solved; you're welcome P&B. The decisions on which drugs are given on the NHS are on cold cash terms, I hope. Less pain for someone with pancreatic cancer and a possible 3 months extension of life versus a possibly life enhancing drug for a healthy man? I wouldn't want to have to make the decisions NICE do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 On 02/08/2016 at 16:45, welshbairn said: Shame we're not distributing them free in Africa to truck drivers and prostitutes. Typical the mainstream media getting first dibs. Phil MacG..... Will be raging aboot that lol -----------------------------_---------- Seriously tho it's step in the right direction and hopefully they'll end up eradiceradicating hiv in the future. Also it's not just gay men who can catch it, this isn't the 80's anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 1 hour ago, bennett said: Phil MacG..... Will be raging aboot that lol -----------------------------_---------- Seriously tho it's step in the right direction and hopefully they'll end up eradiceradicating hiv in the future. Also it's not just gay men who can catch it, this isn't the 80's anymore. Having a vaccine is much more different than a preventative measure, the vaccine eradicates it permanently with no need to treat at a later date. The preventative measure that apparently only gives a 87% success rate isn't going to help solve the problem at all, imo it will only encourage people to have unsafe sex more often because they will feel they have sufficient prevention against getting infected even though they will still know there is a chance they will get infected. I'd actually use that money for this preventative measure and put it towards research into finding a vaccine with a 100% success rate. It'd be pretty darn fucking stupid to give out a preventative measure only to see more people getting infected and then having to then receive life saving cocktails of medicines to control the infection adding to the NHS bill on both fronts. Having a preventative measure with a disease that can be eradicated with expensive drugs is imo a far better use of the NHS's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 We'll have to add MD to your list of qualifications.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 2 hours ago, welshbairn said: life enhancing drug life enhancing, absolute belter mate, well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 53 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: Having a vaccine is much more different than a preventative measure, the vaccine eradicates it permanently with no need to treat at a later date. The preventative measure that apparently only gives a 87% success rate isn't going to help solve the problem at all, imo it will only encourage people to have unsafe sex more often because they will feel they have sufficient prevention against getting infected even though they will still know there is a chance they will get infected. I'd actually use that money for this preventative measure and put it towards research into finding a vaccine with a 100% success rate. It'd be pretty darn fucking stupid to give out a preventative measure only to see more people getting infected and then having to then receive life saving cocktails of medicines to control the infection adding to the NHS bill on both fronts. Having a preventative measure with a disease that can be eradicated with expensive drugs is imo a far better use of the NHS's money. So, stop giving people drugs that help prevent cancer and just spunk all the cash on going all out for a cure? What about the flu jab? That's not 100% effective either, just bin that for young kids and pensioners and go for the cure? The thing here is some gay men having a somewhat risky sex life upsets joe public. So f**k and good on them I say and god forbid we can help prevent a deadly disease. If there was a drug that reduced the chance of getting cancer by the same amount people would be falling over themselves demanding it be prescribed. Apologies for posting a daily mail link but some of the comments on the story are no too far away from the shite some people post on here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3720706/What-skewed-sense-values-NHS-told-5-000-year-lifestyle-drug-prevent-HIV-vital-cataract-surgery-rationed.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 29 minutes ago, Romeo said: So, stop giving people drugs that help prevent cancer and just spunk all the cash on going all out for a cure? What about the flu jab? That's not 100% effective either, just bin that for young kids and pensioners and go for the cure? The thing here is some gay men having a somewhat risky sex life upsets joe public. So f**k and good on them I say and god forbid we can help prevent a deadly disease. If there was a drug that reduced the chance of getting cancer by the same amount people would be falling over themselves demanding it be prescribed. Apologies for posting a daily mail link but some of the comments on the story are no too far away from the shite some people post on here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3720706/What-skewed-sense-values-NHS-told-5-000-year-lifestyle-drug-prevent-HIV-vital-cataract-surgery-rationed.html I get your point there Romeo, the flu jab is a cheap and effective measure to help those who are vulnerable to the flu and doesn't cost £100's each week, it is a once a year thing and effectively saves countless pounds in the process from not having to hospitalise patients suffering from severe flu symptoms. Cancer?, this one is more of a 50/50 thing. you can cause yourself contracting cancerous cells by over drinking through your adult life, by smoking way too much or by overdoing particular drugs. But?, there is the other cancer patients who have not done any of the three things I posted there and to mute your point, there is no preventative measure for cancer other than live a healthy lifestyle. Shagging folk without protection is not a healthy lifestyle and the NHS already provide a more effective preventative measure of contracting HIV?, CONDOMS. If people want to significantly add to the NHS bill so they can have unprotected sex and still have a chance of contracting HIV because they don't like using condoms, more fool them. It is not a preventative measure by any means because it has more than a 10% chance of contracting the disease and like I have posted a few times, it will only encourage stupid people to have more and more unprotected sex because they will believe stupidly that they will be immune to contracting it because they won't fall into the 13% category. Much like back in the 80's, only gay people contract the disease so straight people still had unprotected sex until it became a heterosexual epidemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, hellbhoy said: I get your point there Romeo, the flu jab is a cheap and effective measure to help those who are vulnerable to the flu and doesn't cost £100's each week, it is a once a year thing and effectively saves countless pounds in the process from not having to hospitalise patients suffering from severe flu symptoms. Cancer?, this one is more of a 50/50 thing. you can cause yourself contracting cancerous cells by over drinking through your adult life, by smoking way too much or by overdoing particular drugs. But?, there is the other cancer patients who have not done any of the three things I posted there and to mute your point, there is no preventative measure for cancer other than live a healthy lifestyle. Shagging folk without protection is not a healthy lifestyle and the NHS already provide a more effective preventative measure of contracting HIV?, CONDOMS. If people want to significantly add to the NHS bill so they can have unprotected sex and still have a chance of contracting HIV because they don't like using condoms, more fool them. It is not a preventative measure by any means because it has more than a 10% chance of contracting the disease and like I have posted a few times, it will only encourage stupid people to have more and more unprotected sex because they will believe stupidly that they will be immune to contracting it because they won't fall into the 13% category. Much like back in the 80's, only gay people contract the disease so straight people still had unprotected sex until it became a heterosexual epidemic. The flu jab is only about 60% (figures vary) effective and costs a good bit more that £100 mill (figures vary) a year for the taxpayer. You cannot "contract" cancerous cells. You are assuming that everyone getting the prep drug is going to go out and shag themselves senseless. Woman can take a few different medications to reduce the risk of breast cancer by about 50% if they have a higher than average chance of developing the disease (figures vary) Why should woman take the pill when they can just use condoms? After all, it would be cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 1 hour ago, hellbhoy said: Having a vaccine is much more different than a preventative measure, the vaccine eradicates it permanently with no need to treat at a later date. No, both a vaccine and PrEP would reduce, not eliminate the risk of contracting HIV. And remember, there is no vaccine. Quote The preventative measure that apparently only gives a 87% success rate isn't going to help solve the problem at all, imo it will only encourage people to have unsafe sex more often because they will feel they have sufficient prevention against getting infected even though they will still know there is a chance they will get infected. In your opinion. The trials don't suggest this happens. Quote I'd actually use that money for this preventative measure and put it towards research into finding a vaccine with a 100% success rate. Why not do both? No vaccines are 100% effective - and we've been trying for 30 years to come up with one. It still does not exist. We need to look at what we can do in the meantime. Quote It'd be pretty darn fucking stupid to give out a preventative measure only to see more people getting infected and then having to then receive life saving cocktails of medicines to control the infection adding to the NHS bill on both fronts. Again, the evidence is that this is not true. Quote Having a preventative measure with a disease that can be eradicated with expensive drugs is imo a far better use of the NHS's money. I think what you're saying is prevention is better than a cure? I'd agree - isn't this what PrEP is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Romeo said: The flu jab is only about 60% (figures vary) effective and costs a good bit more that £100 mill (figure vary)a year for the taxpayer. You cannot "contract" cancerous cells. You are assuming that everyone getting the prep drug is going to go out and shag themselves senseless. Woman can take a few different medications to reduce the risk of breast cancer by about 50% (figures vary) Why should woman take the pill when they can just use condoms? After all, it would be cheaper. I should make my point more clear, this disease is spread by sex and by stupid fuckers who will not use condoms. In a monogamous relationship the pill is used to prevent childbirth without condoms which is a completely different kettle of fish. Cancer treatments have a success rate in eradicating the disease which is is different to HIV. It's only my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: A, No, both a vaccine and PrEP would reduce, not eliminate the risk of contracting HIV. And remember, there is no vaccine. B, In your opinion. The trials don't suggest this happens. C, Why not do both? No vaccines are 100% effective - and we've been trying for 30 years to come up with one. It still does not exist. We need to look at what we can do in the meantime. D, Again, the evidence is that this is not true. E, I think what you're saying is prevention is better than a cure? I'd agree - isn't this what PrEP is? A, Vaccines are a one off treatment and sorry if I hinted every person who gets the vaccine will be immune, £100's of pounds a week just so someone can have unprotected sex?, NAH. B, The percentage quoted was posted earlier in the thread I just went along with it? C, HIV is preventable by 100% if you don't have sex with anyone other than a lifelong partner in a monogamous relationship, and I agree on other diseases having both a cure and preventative measures just not for nookie. D, My opinion there. E, Agreed to a certain extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 The annual cost to the NHS for supplying the pill to 1.5 million women in 1995 was less than £40 million. The cost of supplying Prep to 1.5 million men would be £7.8 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 I'm not taking a policy position on this - it should be no different to how the NHS (in both Scotland and the rest of the UK) decides if a treatment is cost effective. It's a massive ethical minefield as it is and becomes very emotive. Look at all the controversy about funding of certain cancer drugs. Useful NICE briefing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tree house tam Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 11 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: I'm not taking a policy position on this - it should be no different to how the NHS (in both Scotland and the rest of the UK) decides if a treatment is cost effective. It's a massive ethical minefield as it is and becomes very emotive. Look at all the controversy about funding of certain cancer drugs. Useful NICE briefing here. Are you seriously comparing HIV to Cancer? HIV is preventable and by far cheaper ways than issuing prep. This is a no go for the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavin_3110 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 On 02/08/2016 at 21:41, Cyclizine said: 'MSM' is supposed to be a neutral description of a group - there are men who would not identify as 'gay' or 'homosexual', but do have sex with other males. (I'm a healthcare worker, so this kind of thing comes up a lot in policies...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 So, it's all about the money then? Aye, right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 58 minutes ago, Romeo said: So, it's all about the money then? Aye, right I'd be delighted for anyone who wanted Prep to get it free if it cost the same as the pill or even 10 times. It is all about the money, and priorities in a limited budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 5 hours ago, tree house tam said: Are you seriously comparing HIV to Cancer? HIV is preventable and by far cheaper ways than issuing prep. This is a no go for the NHS. No, as I said, I'm not taking a position on this. A decision will be made on the cost effectiveness of PrEP - personally, I suspect it will not be found to be cost effective. I also agree there are other ways of reducing the risk of transmission. You've kind of proven my point on the emotiveness of cancer and drug funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.