This new drug to prevent those who have unprotected sex from getting the HIV virus.

sex (missing from title)

I thought the same as you when I heard this yesterday. When resources are so finite can we really afford this. It's not that I think preventative measure are not important I do and I agree that some save money in the long run. but in this case wouldn't better safe sex education be cheaper. Or is it the same old cry we often hear about using condoms " oh it takes away the spontaneity and some of the sensitivity"

not sure what I think.
The Local Authorities were told by the NHS they had to fund this drug because they are the ones dealing with education and preventative measures, which surprised me; I think, if it is to be funded out of public funds, the NHS are the ones to fund it.
One could say why should the NHS fund the morning after pill, abortions, some cosmetic surgery etc etc unless in extreme circumstances.

I just think common sense has long since been lost. How a (obviously out of touch with reality!) judge could think it reasonable to pay for a drug for a condition which could be avoided when, as you've said, NHS is so stripped for cash it rations things like hip replacements and cataract ops which are not anyone's "fault" and have a drastic effect on quality of life which affects both the patient and their family/friends.
No doubt, of course, he could pay privately for these things if he needed them doing.

I thought the same as other posters . It is entirely preventable by safe practices so why do we need a drug to prevent it .

But how to you make people use condoms?

Just curious, but how is this different from the NHS providing contraception drugs?

What about, say, a heterosexual couple, one of whom is known to be positive? I knew a couple a few years ago who were in this situation.

What about protection for sexually active people (gay or straight) who do not know if their partner may be positive? And he/she may not know, in 25% of cases, is estimated.

And what about the financial side....preventing the spread of HIV could save millions.

HIV is a risk to all sexually active persons that have multiple partners not just homosexuals. Do we spend £400 a month on everyone so that they can have unprotected sex. ? If unprotected sex is so important to a couple, let them finance it.

The contraceptive pill may not have direct medical advantages, but the big difference is the cost to the NHS, an average of £3 a month depending on the specific pill.

The NHS may still not pay for it, that will be up to NICE if the appeal fails.

However, playing Devil's Advocate, we do pay for smoking and obesity induced illness so is this different? We pay for abortions too when a condom could have avoided it. We pay to help people stop smoking too.

I don't know where to start or stop as many people could prevent their illnesses with healthier lifestyles.

It's about £450 a month is it or a week?

NICE can be notoriously difficult when it comes to funding cancer drugs, treatment for children with inherited illnesses, treatment that would help children with cerebral palsy with pioneering treatment to enable them to walk, cataract operations etc.
However, many other drugs and treatments are available for the treatment or prevention of conditions resulting from life-style choices which presumably will set a precedent in this case.

I do wonder who makes the decisions and what motivates their thinking.

I think homosexuals are more at risk because the virus can get into the blood stream - via a cut or tearing - which they are more prone to, as well as by exchange of bodily fluids which is common to both sexes. The recipient in either case is at the greatest risk. But there is an apparently common practice that I came across when reading about the Romans called intercrual sex, which a lot of men in msm relationships prefer to practice and which is risk free. Sorry for too much information!
I think a line has to be drawn somewhere between freedom to choose a risky lifestyle (including smoking, excess alcohol, excess/high risk food, drugs etc) and unneccessary body enhancements, and the cost of picking up the pieces of those who choose risky behaviour. First education, which is more or less in place, then maybe a list of things that are not treated for free and which people who want them have to pay for - by taking out health insurance first if necessary. It may sound draconian but it is our taxes that pay for it at the moment. Maybe in a few generations the free health service will be a thing of the past.

The NHS is for all people and has a large part to play in preventative medicine and education. I agree wholeheartedly that overeating, smoking,failing to take enough exercise, eating unbalanced diets , unprotected sex and joint problems brought on by obesity are all self imposed problems in a way and could be prevented. How do the powers that be behave consistently across the board?

I guess if the NHS funds the morning after pill when someone has unwisely had unprotected sex, it would be hard not to justify this new drug. The saving on maternity care etc in the first instance, and on long-term drug treatment in the second instance has to make sense financially.

If we could stop everyone doing unhealthy things of all sorts then the NHS would be awash in spare cash.

Oh for heavens sake. This as as bad as the "don't supply the children with condoms it will enourage them line". People in general are constantly having unprotected sex.
Look at the posts on the illegitimacy some time back.
This pill should be more economical than treating HIV.

It is not just gay people who have unprotected sex. Don't anyone forget that.
How much does smoking cost the NHS every year perhaps smokers should be charged for the consequences of their risky behaviour. IMO it just hit headline because the issues are around gay sex.

I fully support this being available on the NHS. Other sexually transmitted diseases are treated so no different - gays are humans too . Do we stop giving s single mother financial support because she didn't use any form of contraception? Stop prescribing the morning after pill?

This is s cruel and deadly disease ,

I don't have a problem with the decision. It's not all about gay men. The drug is not just about prevention, it's about stopping the disease from getting worse or taking hold. It has an impact on physical and mental health.

As for the price, once the licence expires it will become much cheaper when generic versions are available.

Some people are so blinkered and very often this exposes their own prejudices.

Thanks KatGransnet, I agree this thread title was at the very least, bordering homophobic.
I don't have a problem with the decision. Most of us try to lead healthy ish lives but that doesn't protect us from life threatening illnesses. The real issue is constant cuts to health and local authority budgets. The stand off between the nhs who say the local authorities should pay because their role is about sexual health prevention. LA's are faced with huge cuts to their budgets, leaving front line services decimated.

We are a rich country, we should fund health services properly. Nit will probably be cost effective,

katgransnet Thank you that is much better.

Well said Wilma

According to the figures in the paper today half the new cases every year are heterosexual. Presumably it is cheaper to prevent infection than to treat fullblown AIDS and its complications.

Presumably it is cheaper to prevent infection than to treat fullblown AIDS and its complications.

I was going to post that too.
Prevention is better than cure - or prolonged treatment and possibly no cure.

It is not just gay people who have unprotected sex.
That's what I meant earlier when I said One could say why should the NHS fund the morning after pill, abortions etc
More consequences which are at present funded.