PrEP ruling: NHS can provide HIV prevention drug after it loses High Court case

[Lipstick Vogue]

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the NHS in England has the power to fund a drug which prevents HIV infection in people at high risk of the virus.
NHS England had previously said that local authorities should provide the pre-exposure prophylaxis drug - known as Prep - because they are responsible for preventative health.
But the court insisted this fell within the remit of the NHS.
An estimated 14,000 people would be eligible for Prep in England.
Campaigners and the Local Government Association, which represents local authorities, said they were delighted by the decision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37935788

So essentially the taxpayer should pay for this preventative measure even though there are clearly other options available. Condoms, regular checkups and generally not living such a promiscuous lifestyle would bring down the number of people getting infected. That number is around 2 in 1000 in the general population but 25x higher within the gay community.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? If I was playing in traffic I wouldn't blame the driver that hit me and I certainly wouldn't ask him to pay for my treatment.

 

[Hands]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37935788

So essentially the taxpayer should pay for this preventative measure even though there are clearly other options available. Condoms, regular checkups and generally not living such a promiscuous lifestyle would bring down the number of people getting infected. That number is around 2 in 1000 in the general population but 25x higher within the gay community.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? If I was playing in traffic I wouldn't blame the driver that hit me and I certainly wouldn't ask him to pay for my treatment.

This isn't a hard concept. If we can reduce the danger and likelihood of somebody getting seriously ill, we should. Or should we suddenly stop helping smokers who get cancer? Or kids who need vaccinations? Maybe we shouldnt help people who break their bones when they trip over from being clumsy?

The reason we have an NHS is because for a short time we decided being decent human beings to our fellow countrymen was a better alternative than being awful tosspots. I fully understand with Brexit in effect the days of being not terrible are over, but I don't intend to let it happen so easily.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

The NHS doesn't have infinite amount of money, an added cost to an already stretched budget isn't going to help improve an already struggling service. An added cost that really wouldn't be needed if people would just act responsibly.

Hyperbole aside I'd certainly be all for moving smokers down lists. People know the risks.

If wanting my tax money going to causes that aren't helping gay dudes ditch condoms makes me a tosspot then I suppose I'm a tosspot.

 

[Esper]

If wanting my tax money going to causes that aren't helping gay dudes ditch condoms makes me a tosspot then I suppose I'm a tosspot.

What would you rather your tax money went to?

 

[Nihilego]

I mean, you just kinda described how the NHS works. This is no different to any of the examples of preventable diseases or injuries that Hands gave up there. The whole point of the NHS is to stop you running into financial issues because you were unfortunate enough to get ill. Even if it is preventable, if it's a disease, we should be making sure that we are doing our best to prevent its occurrence and treat those who get it.

AIDS is a potentially life-destroying condition and I am more than happy for my money to go towards preventing it in those most at risk. The fact that a reliable preventative treatment for such an evolutionarily powerful disease exists is staggering in itself.

If wanting my tax money going to causes that aren't helping gay dudes ditch condoms makes me a tosspot then I suppose I'm a tosspot.

I think you're overlooking the fact that people don't specifically use condoms to prevent HIV infection. There are a myriad of other reasons why gay people (and everyone else) should be having safe sex. I don't think anyone's gonna be thinking "oh, cool, I can't be infected by HIV so I'm gonna go have irresponsible unprotected sex with every gay man I find" just because of this. Plus, even in the case of HIV, I feel people would rather be safe than sorry. Many people are vaccinated against a lot of diseases but still try to avoid them. Why would this be any different?

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

What would you rather your tax money went to?

Getting elderly/disabled people sufficient care in their homes.

Although to be fair, you could throw a dart at a board full of health and care sectors and it would probably land on a more deserving one.

It's a brilliant drug, no doubts about that. I just hope it can get cheaper commercially.

I think you're overlooking the fact that people don't specifically use condoms to prevent HIV infection. There are a myriad of other reasons why gay people (and everyone else) should be having safe sex. I don't think anyone's gonna be thinking "oh, cool, I can't be infected by HIV so I'm gonna go have irresponsible unprotected sex with every gay man I find" just because of this. Plus, even in the case of HIV, I feel people would rather be safe than sorry. Many people are vaccinated against a lot of diseases but still try to avoid them. Why would this be any different?

Nah, there's absolutely a culture of people ditching condoms once on PrEP within the gay community. I think other STIs are so treatable nowadays that people think it's worth the risk.

 

[Sektor]

If I'm not mistaken, this is a preventative drug, no? Does birth control fall under healthcare? I'm sure that PrEP can be taken by both male and female, no? I think it's a precautionary measure.

 

[Esper]

Nah, there's absolutely a culture of people ditching condoms once on PrEP within the gay community. I think other STIs are so treatable nowadays that people think it's worth the risk.

I've heard a few anecdotal stories from a friend who is in with some of the gay scenes in San Francisco that gay men are worried about some of them doing this.

But it makes me wonder. At what point does some people's abuse of something mean no one else can get the benefit of it? Because there are definite legitimate benefits to a drug like this.

 

[gimmepie]

Fun fact, having sex is not the only way to contract AIDs. The transmission of any bodily fluids can cause someone to become infected with the HIV virus and develop AIDs. That means this preventative measure is beneficial not just to the promiscuous but also to anyone working in industries where they come into contact with blood, saliva etc.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I think it makes sense for private insurance (I'm speaking from an American perspective here) to cover PrEP. HIV- PrEP patients are cheaper to cover than HIV+ patients. HIV+ patients require more drugs than just Truvada and require more lab work and more frequent appointments. Whether public funding should cover it: I lean no.

The argument that it isn't 100% effective is hogwash. Condoms aren't 100% effective either. Combining both is the best, but unfortunately many patients are viewing PrEP as a replacement for condoms. This can be helped by doctors better counseling their patients on safe sex.

 

[Somewhere_]

Fun fact, having sex is not the only way to contract AIDs. The transmission of any bodily fluids can cause someone to become infected with the HIV virus and develop AIDs. That means this preventative measure is beneficial not just to the promiscuous but also to anyone working in industries where they come into contact with blood, saliva etc.

How many people are infected by HIV or AIDs through bodily fluids?

 

[gimmepie]

How many people are infected by HIV or AIDs through bodily fluids?

I'm not an expert so I couldn't say for sure. Considering the number of jobs and hobbies where one could get into contact with say, someone else's blood, I'd suggest more than you'd expect although definitely less than through sexual activity.

Although technically it's always contracted through bodily fluids lol.

 

[Hands]

The NHS doesn't have infinite amount of money, an added cost to an already stretched budget isn't going to help improve an already struggling service.

Preventative treatments are not why the NHS is suffering. Deliberate underfunding and poor management is.

An added cost that really wouldn't be needed if people would just act responsibly.

That's not how real life works. I'm straight and I had a serious HIV scare once. An ex of mine had gotten blind drunk and slept without protection with someone during one of our numerous break ups. She made a mistake, that was all. I've done the same, slept with a friend without wrapping up when we were intoxicated. Real life doesn't work based on the individual morality and self perceived decency of one person on a Pokemon forum.

Hyperbole aside I'd certainly be all for moving smokers down lists. People know the risks.

But you wouldn't advocate the overall removal of treatment for smokers? That's interesting. So no state help for gays but just a longer wait on the list for smokers? Please can you elaborate further on this.

If wanting my tax money going to causes that aren't helping gay dudes ditch condoms makes me a tosspot then I suppose I'm a tosspot.

Well, at the risk of being banned, it's clear you're an absolute monumental tosser. How much are you paying in tax per year?

If I'm not mistaken, this is a preventative drug, no? Does birth control fall under healthcare? I'm sure that PrEP can be taken by both male and female, no? I think it's a precautionary measure.

Yeah, the NHS covers a load of birth control methods, including condoms at their GUM clinics.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/972.aspx?CategoryID=68

 

[gimmepie]

Let us at least try to keep it civil guys.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

Interestingly I've seen a few stats flying around saying that the prevention actually would save money long term, if this is the case then obviously I would have to change my opinion.

Your argument on mistakes was a good one, I possibly have been thinking about this too mechanically. Although then again, 25x more mistakes within the gay community despite a constant bombardment of information since the 1980s(?). I'd rather be helping people that want to be helped.

On that logic I suppose I really do have no leg to stand on here, in regards to smokers or a lot of other instances of self destructive behavior. Only thing close would be personal preference of risking cancer to AIDS.

Free treatment for everyone! Lets just hope that PrEP is used alongside other measures and not as a replacement. Although I'm doubtful that it'll actually end up on the NHS because of people like me last night.

FYI I pay way too much tax.

 

[Hands]

Interestingly I've seen a few stats flying around saying that the prevention actually would save money long term, if this is the case then obviously I would have to change my opinion.

Human life is worth more than superficial money.

Although then again, 25x more mistakes within the gay community despite a constant bombardment of information since the 1980s(?). I'd rather be helping people that want to be helped.

Yes but to understand why that is we first need to look at things in context. LBGT individuals for decades had to live in the shadows. Their lifestyle and feelings have been demonised for so so long. Forced into segregated clubs that became a norm, a lifestyle to match. This goes far beyond contraceptive and sexual education. Not that much was ever provided to young lbgt people at all when I was in school. Never once in sex ed was being gay mentioned. It doesn't invalidate their right to the NHS.

Only thing close would be personal preference of risking cancer to AIDS.

You could just be protected against both to the best of our ability because that's exactly what Nye Bevan envisioned for our futures.

Free treatment for everyone!

https://www.england.nhs.uk/about/our-vision-and-purpose/

Essentially, yes.

Lets just hope that PrEP is used alongside other measures and not as a replacement. Although I'm doubtful that it'll actually end up on the NHS because of people like me last night.

Well don't worry, us on the left are back on the rise, and when we get Corbyn in we can start to undo some of the injustices done to the NHS by corporate capitalism and people who value profit over people.

FYI I pay way too much tax.

I'm paying roughly £5,000 a year, I'd happily pay more if we were investing it in fixing our country instead of bombing others.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

You're a saint, young man!

 

[Star-Lord]

I love how whenever HIV/AIDS becomes a topic it always turns to how gay people have way too much sex or w/e -- Nevermind that HIV/AIDS is an epidemic that shook the entire WORLD. Nevermind that it affects, both genders, is passed through utero, is contracted multiple different ways... it's so exhausting having to hear this constantly turn back into being an issue that's seemingly specific with gay men.

This is why I'm glad Reagan is rotting to be honest.

 

[Hands]

I love how whenever HIV/AIDS becomes a topic it always turns to how gay people have way too much sex or w/e -- Nevermind that HIV/AIDS is an epidemic that shook the entire WORLD. Nevermind that it affects, both genders, is passed through utero, is contracted multiple different ways... it's so exhausting having to hear this constantly turn back into being an issue that's seemingly specific with gay men.

This is why I'm glad Reagan is rotting to be honest.

Yeah, if we're honest the whole essence of this thread and the wider story is a thinly veiled anti LBGT sentiment, particularly toward gay men.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

It's abut percentages, bro.

Within Britain, gay men are by far the highest risk when it comes to contracting HIV and AIDS.

Also, nobody here has said they have too much sex. Unprotected sex? Sure.

Yeah, if we're honest the whole essence of this thread and the wider story is a thinly veiled anti LBGT sentiment, particularly toward gay men.

I'm sorry you see it that way.