HIV campaigners win NHS drug battle - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14707883
Using Prep has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection by 86%.

The once-a-day pill, which costs £400 a month per person, works by disabling the virus to stop it multiplying.

It is currently used in the US, Canada, Australia and France to help protect the most at-risk gay men.


So we have a drug that costs £400 a month and has very high effectiveness to prevent the spread of HIV. You need to take a pill every day which some argue will not be cost effective for the ‘high risk’ gay men who have undisciplined lives anyway.

Here is the news on the BBC court case coverage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36946000

And here is the guardians own jones (a gay man) giving the predictable ‘gays lives matter’ melodrama.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mens-lives

And here is the daily mail giving the predictable moral outrage from the right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -gone.html

What do you think? I think the NHS has to make ‘death panel’ choices everyday. Prevention is important but this cost is just too high. In what other case do we pay £400 a month just on prevention in the same way? Who would be entitled or just gay people? A condom is just as effective.
#14707887
A condom is just as effective.

It seems to me this thread should end here (although I do wish your threads much success, layman).

Don't expect any rational debate on this though. The money that has been spent on this disease is so way out of proportion, there is basically nothing that can surprise me anymore.
#14707888
layman wrote:A condom is just as effective.

The existence of a condom is easy to verify. How do you verify the pill has been taken and is being effective?

The condom protects both sides from multiple types of transmission. Does the pill need to be taken by both persons, only the person with HIV, or only the person without HIV?
#14707904
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:It seems to me this thread should end here (although I do wish your threads much success, layman).

Don't expect any rational debate on this though. The money that has been spent on this disease is so way out of proportion, there is basically nothing that can surprise me anymore.


What makes me angry is, this issue is just one of many that has placed 'our' NHS in it's position of crisis.

I remember the NHS 's creation in 1948,I do not recall that it was ever meant to serve the nationa as a remedy to the negative effects of a 'lifestyle' choice,whether that is HIV\AIDS, obesity, 'cosmetic' surgery, alcoholism or smoking, any of which cause,cancer & many other health related problems.

Compounding that fact, is that any of the above, avoid the 'positive' choice, yet, still expect others to fund the resulting 'necessary' treatment options.

The fact is, the NHS was NOT created to serve the interest of the above, the patients who became ill NOT as a result of the above 'vices', are now shunted into the back of the queue,simply because the NHS, like education etc, has become a politically correct football, serving the interest of the minority interest only.

Time was when one could turn up at a GP's surgery & just wait for one's 'own' GP to see you.

That's no longer the case,health,housing,services are all suffering from an unsustainable demand, a direct result of mass-uncontrolled migration.

The Labour Party's 'solution', 'throw-more-money-at-EVERY-problem', a 'solution' straight out of the political nut-house.

The 'real' problem is, TOO MANY PEOPLE-NOT TOO FEW RESOURCES & THE WRONG PRIORITIES.
#14707918
As I understand it, 'PREP' was mainly used as a post-'slip up' drug. The condom breaks, upon which you're supposed to go to your physician for a prescription. The window is three days. But I see gay men are now using it similarly as 'the pill' for women. Wonder what the long-term effects are going to be. Sounds pretty stupid as well, considering that you can still catch all the other venereal diseases.
#14708001
I suppose you could compare it to malaria pills that people take during holidays in the tropics. Mosquito nets and insect repellent could be used and would prevent the transmission of all mosquito borne diseases instead of focusing all your efforts on only one. I always felt malaria pills were pointless since avoiding bites is preferable and simple and the pills don't protect you from dengue fever, which is just as prevalent in many places. If malaria pills cost £400 per month I'd oppose providing them on the NHS.

If you want to enjoy sex without a condom and without worrying about HIV then you should be faithful to one partner.
#14711605
So people are getting upset about this, but they won't get upset about the morbidly obese person(a lifestyle choice) who probably uses more money from the healthcare systems than some gay who wants to enjoy his lifestyle? :roll: Fuck off!
#14711667
I said this in another thread, but the way the world works is different than the way it should.

Let's say there's a closet-case that goes to bathhouses and does all the icky things you can say about gay men.

Let's assume that his wife finds out, dumps him, and then meets you. A week later she comes over for dinner and cuts herself with a knife. You help put a bandage on her. Enjoy your new AIDS.

It's not her fault, not your fault, but it happened. Now the state has to take care of you, her, closet-case, and all the men he was irresponsible with. Maybe he should have used condoms more often, but he didn't. You are condemned to die as a result.

Wouldn't it make more financial and ethical sense to just make sure the guy has access to the drug?

In making this example, I explained how I do historic preservation at a building downtown; being downtown, there are discarded needles all over the place. If I'm accidentally pierced, I'd prefer it to be a clean needle; which means I support needle exchanges as that slows AIDS. Granted, I'd rather the junkies find a new lifestyle. But they won't, and I accept reality. The needle exchange saves lives, and could save mine--even though if you were to map out a perfect world, the issue wouldn't exist at all.

Let's live in the real world. Let's stem the but in anyway we can.
#14711669
The HIV virus can only survive for a few hours outside of the human body. Those needles might give you tetanus or something, but not HIV. And no, your example is tepid. In reality this is about the pharmaceutical industry most likely using gay interest groups for a mutually beneficial arrangement. Patient groups are typically used in these cases in order to influence national healthcare systems such as the NHS in buying stocks of various high-cost drugs.

PREP is something used by porn stars, not the average person. There is no research available for the ramifications of long-term use (e.g. creating a form of 'super-HIV', resistant to PREP -- similar to a form 'super-gonnorhea' already spreading amongst gay men) and it encourages irresponsible sexual conduct, which will lead to the spread of other venereal diseases.
#14711684
Godstud wrote:So people are getting upset about this, but they won't get upset about the morbidly obese person(a lifestyle choice) who probably uses more money from the healthcare systems than some gay who wants to enjoy his lifestyle? :roll: Fuck off!

That's not really comparable, since nobody argues that people with HIV shouldn't be treated. It's more akin to paying 500 pounds a month for people who are at risk of getting morbidly obese or to smokers to prevent negative health consequences while they carry on with their lifestyle. I wouldn't necessarily be against either of these, but surely it's not wrong to ask questions whether this is cost effective and perhaps fuelling irresponsible behaviours.

Dagoth Ur wrote:Oh no people are trying to stop the spread of one of the worst diseases ever known.

Calling it one of the worst diseases ever known is an exaggeration, especially considering today's treatment options. Mortality, disease burden and even treatment costs are either the same or lower than for lots of chronic illnesses.
#14711685
Sabb wrote:The HIV virus can only survive for a few hours outside of the human body. Those needles might give you tetanus or something, but not HIV. And no, your example is tepid. In reality this is about the pharmaceutical industry most likely using gay interest groups for a mutually beneficial arrangement. Patient groups are typically used in these cases in order to influence national healthcare systems such as the NHS in buying stocks of various high-cost drugs.


So far as the needles go, nothing's stopping someone from having thrown the needle away just before I walk around the corner. It's something I'd be dumb not to worry about, even if I worry about it little enough that I keep the job.

But I'll note that there was no real counter to the financial cost that would mount if the state had to treat many more people because of the misconduct of one person.

Also, I agree that pharmaceutical companies are only worried about their bottom line. I hope you see how capitalism has no concern or regard at all for human life and should be completely abolished.
#14711858
The Immortal Goon wrote:So far as the needles go, nothing's stopping someone from having thrown the needle away just before I walk around the corner. It's something I'd be dumb not to worry about, even if I worry about it little enough that I keep the job.


Find a different job?

But I'll note that there was no real counter to the financial cost that would mount if the state had to treat many more people because of the misconduct of one person.

They're talking about getting an entire subculture addicted to costly daily drugs in order to prevent the spread of a disease, the symptoms of which can be suppressed by getting the victims addicted to costly daily drugs. Catch 22. More like a battle between opposing pharmaceutical giants. Sounds like a 21st century version of the Opium wars.

Condom use, monogamy, social control and common sense seem to be more cost efficient.

Also, I agree that pharmaceutical companies are only worried about their bottom line. I hope you see how capitalism has no concern or regard at all for human life and should be completely abolished.


Capitalism is human nature, and human nature is capitalism. Marxism is idealism, which is meant to bridle human nature. But as we all know, human nature is refractory. Thus a compromise is found in the middle ground.
#14711940
Sabb wrote:Find a different job?


Why? There's a needle exchange, so I feel pretty confident that it's worth my employment in exchange for the relatively low risk of the needles.

So far as the rest of your post, I'm still struck by your new found principle against big businesses using people for profit!

It doesn't change the fact that providing solutions to prevent diseases for people at risk, like the needle exchange and the addicts, saves lives and prevents further infections (like me).

Condom use, monogamy, social control and common sense seem to be more cost efficient.


Awesome, maybe I should just explain to the junkies that their drug use provides potential damage to me, and they'll all stop. Certainly, me telling people that risky behaviour is risky will solve everything. A month ago I had unprotected sex with a girl I just met. I knew I shouldn't have, but I did it anyway as she was beautiful and I was there and we didn't have a rubber. I got checked out, and I'm fine. But I know better, I've been told my whole life it was bad, the sex-Ed I had in school was the, "Only abstanance is 100% effective," variety, and did it anyway.

What do you imagine that you're going to tell a junky, a gay man at a bathhouse, or me with a beautiful girl on a couch, that I haven't heard before?

Capitalism is human nature, and human nature is capitalism.


The vast majority of human history would beg to differ.

Unless you think that human slavery and feudalism is capitalism for magical reasons.

Marxism is idealism


Actually, it's a a materialist philosophy.
#14711950
The Immortal Goon wrote:So far as the rest of your post, I'm still struck by your new found principle against big businesses using people for profit!


:?:

This is projection. There is nothing 'newfound' when my approach has always been sceptical towards most things. Perhaps you simply haven't read all of my posts pertaining to this subject.

It doesn't change the fact that providing solutions to prevent diseases for people at risk, like the needle exchange and the addicts, saves lives and prevents further infections (like me).


It's irrelevant to this discussion. I don't have problems with needle exchanges.

Awesome, maybe I should just explain to the junkies that their drug use provides potential damage to me, and they'll all stop. Certainly, me telling people that risky behaviour is risky will solve everything. A month ago I had unprotected sex with a girl I just met. I knew I shouldn't have, but I did it anyway as she was beautiful and I was there and we didn't have a rubber. I got checked out, and I'm fine. But I know better, I've been told my whole life it was bad, the sex-Ed I had in school was the, "Only abstanance is 100% effective," variety, and did it anyway.

What do you imagine that you're going to tell a junky, a gay man at a bathhouse, or me with a beautiful girl on a couch, that I haven't heard before?


Well I suppose you'll simply have to remind yourself to take a costly pill everyday for the rest of your life in case you forget that condom. Pills for everyone! How did that work out with antibiotics by the way? :lol:

The vast majority of human history would beg to differ.

Unless you think that human slavery and feudalism is capitalism for magical reasons.


Actually I do think slavery can be a constituent element of a capitalistic model. The Greeks thought so. The Romans thought so. The British thought so. The Vikings thought so. The Ottomons thought so. The Africans thought so. The <insert> ... ad infinitum.

And feudalism is a statecraft model which once again allowed and followed a capitalistic mode of production.
#14712013
The Sabbaticus wrote:It's irrelevant to this discussion. I don't have problems with needle exchanges.


Well I suppose you'll simply have to remind yourself to get a new needle multiple times a day for the rest of your life in case you forget that clean needle. Needles for everyone! How did that work out with antibiotics by the way?

The Sabbaticus wrote:Actually I do think slavery can be a constituent element of a capitalistic model. The Greeks thought so. The Romans thought so. The British thought so. The Vikings thought so. The Ottomons thought so. The Africans thought so. The <insert> ... ad infinitum.


So capitalism just means, "trade," for you? Great, then the Soviet Union, the Paris Commune were all staunchly capitalist! Congratulations, you've come up with a definition so stupid as to make all use of the word completely meaningless! :lol:
#14712079
Slavery = the commodification of the human body for commercial exploitation. The sale of slave units is not irreconcilable with 'capitalism'. Similarly, feudalism was also a mode of capitalism. In analogy, Chinese can't own land in Tajikistan, but they're still exploiting farm lands through land leases as part of their commercial enterprises. Another, land in Canada is owned by the Queen, yet capitalism flourishes there.

And yes, the Soviet Union was a capitalistic entity on the world market.

Your needle argument is ridiculous by the way. :lol: I'm just politely going to ignore it.
#14712081
I don't begrudge homosexuals getting medicine that will reduce their chances of getting something as devastating as HIV. I do question if the taxpayer should be funding it given that we know homosexuals engage in high risk sex without protection. It's something of a dilemma for me. If condoms only provide 75% protection then it makes sense to fund it, but I'd only do so for people between the age of 16 and 25. After that I'd expect people to mature and have a less casual attitude towards sex and higher degree of personal responsibility.

If you're in your 30's and want to engage in risky sex, then you must accept the risks.
#14712369
I'm in the pro-funding this camp. Like TIG says, the way the real world works is not ideal. People engage in risky behaviour, whether they should or not. And it can affect other people, who do not. My dad, for example, used to be a police officer. One time, when arresting someone, he got pierced with a needle the guy had been using to inject heroin. Fortunately, he was fine, but he could have caught HIV through no fault of his own. There are countless similar cases all the time, with police officers, paramedics, doctors, etc.
#14712370
@Heisenberg That's not the scenario we're talking about. We're talking about a group of people daily taking a pill as a prophylactic for when they might have sex. No one has a problem with your scenario.

No, Rancid, I think a lot of the people who voted[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]