England : HIV Campaigners Win Court Battle For Treatment for risky Sex drug
 

[An Aids charity has won a
High Court battle to ensure
a "game-changing" preventative
HIV treatment can be funded by the NHS.
NHS England said it had received advice
that it does not have the legal power
to fund pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)
- a "highly effective" anti-retroviral drug
used to stop HIV from becoming
established in the event of transmission.
Instead, it said the drug - which
costs £400 per month for each patient - was
the responsibility of local councils,
which are in charge of funding
preventative health services.]


Only in England NHS
this Funding is not wanted by the NHS
they are due to Fight in Court in a Appeal.

http://news.sky.com/story/charity-wi...tment-10520066

£400a month to prevent getting something you could avoid.:shrug:

At the same time not enough money in the kitty for certain cancers drugs..
Doesn't make sense to me at face value.

Its Money the NHS can not afford

Debate now on LBC
http://www.lbc.co.uk/

yup pretty much this, seems a bit silly

Not silly, it's an important drug. The right decision :clap1:

That's a lot of money to prevent a disease that's already preventable. It's like a licence for people to go out and have unprotected sex that's going to cost the NHS £400 a week. Bloody scandalous when people are being denied life-extending drugs for cancer and other diseases.

This mad decision is going to reflect quite badly on the gay community, I think.

Just wrap yourself up and don't share needles, common sense is the only thing needed to avoid HIV.

This is incredibly important. You can always go on about how it's so avoidable but **** happens. Drunken mistakes happen. Condoms split.
This is vital for the Gay community.

Yes a Expert phoned in
and said that it stops HIV
but Not all other STD's

Plenty of diseases are preventable, doesn't mean we should withhold important treatment though.

If it was any other kind of contagious disease, I think people would be a lot more sympathetic.

So, we give every gay a pill, then why not every prostitute, hey, and while we are at it what about just to be fair, every person indulging in sex, after all accidents happen and we are all one drunken/unprotected shag away from disaster. Where do we draw the line.
For years we have tried to get away from the idea that HIV is only a danger to gays, straight people get it as well.
I am sure I heard on the BBC news this morning that you can buy the drugs for £40/£50 on the Internet, makes more sense to buy them yourselves if you are really concerned.

Nothing but truth Dezzy.

HIV isn't a disease that affects only gay people. I wanted to say that first...

People have to rake responsibility for themselves. If you're going out to have unprotected sex with people whose background you don't know I don't think it's economic for the NHS to supply you with pills so you don't develop AIDS. Wear a condom. And if you're not sure of the person's sexual health, don't have sex with them!

People who have cancer and other life-threatening diseases are being denied life-extending drugs because the NHS is being made to spend money on unfair stuff like this.

The isn't anything to do with people being unsympathetic to the plight of gay people, it's to do with the fact that the NHS are being forced to provide these pills to allow gay people to continue having unprotected sex.

I hope that the NHS's appeal is upheld and sense prevails.

This isn't a treatment... it's a preventative measure.

I'm totally against this... and yet... I totally support equality for gay people. And listening some people who've thought this thing through to the end, there are plenty of gay people who also think it's madness.

I'd imagine the reason this has been green flagged and not, say, some other experimental cancer drugs, or something else, is its success rate? Rather than say its importance or necessity. Which from a purely practical point of view (which I don't doubt most of those with the purse strings on the NHS have) makes sense, I guess... but I do agree it's not the most vital expense right now. But then forcing the public to have "what's more important, HIV or cancer?", "who's more in need, transgender people or anorexics?" debates instead of, I don't know, increasing NHS funding to allow both, is a moral nightmare and something the conservatives get off on I'm sure.

Ian Dale (Live LBC) says
a Private Clinic in London
sells "Prep" drug at £130 a month

[makes sense, I guess... but I do agree it's not the most vital expense right now. But then forcing the public to have "what's more important, HIV or cancer?", "who's more in need, transgender people or anorexics?"]


Yes Shaun
a Top Debate on Ch4HD News Live
tonight , from 7PM may go fisty cuffs


NHS Debt around £ 2 Billion (Ref LBC)

So you take this after you've had unprotected sex if you think you may have contracted it or what?

You take it before, so you're free to go and have all the unprotected sex you want.

So basically anyone who is sexually active goes and gets this at £400 p/m?That's ridiculous.If it was a treatment i'd agree with it but £400 a month for almost every adult would cost like billions?

I mean on one side it kinda makes sense
It might end up saving the NHS money but less people getting HIV

But then there is already clear ways to prevent getting it so why pay to provide another way

I, as a gay man, personally find this ludicrous, why should the government fund something that's not needed? like people have said, if it was a pill to treat HIV or aids, then yes, go for it, but this is basically the government funding people sleeping with anything that moves without having as big of a worry of catching HIV, there are ways to avoid catching it without tax payers having to fork out for it, just be sensible, I see this as just giving people license to be as dirty as possible and have even less care about who they jump into bed with.

No you take it long before
your GP or clinic has to monitor it
(For Active Gay Risky Sex blokes
at this time in England Only)

I agree.(apart from the gay man part:laugh:)

"I, as a gay man, personally find this ludicrous, why should the government fund something that's not needed?"


Liam , There is a Massive fight on this
A Court Ruled it in
Not the NHS,
only in England
Not Wales , Scotland or N. Ireland etc.



NHS England wants it back in
Court.