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

Very true SueDonim. (Like your name).

As has been said before the NHS could finance many of these things IF we were willing, as a rich country, to pay as much for our health service as for example, Denmark, Sweden, France and Germany. I also take Djs point, that it is cash strapped local authorities that will end up having to take the difficult decision whether to fund or not. Easier to blame local services than Government!

I don't understand why sex should be regarded as any different from all the other risky things we do.

In a perfect world all people should "curb their pleasures" if those pleasures have a detrimental effect to their health, but as thatbags posted earlier "people are flawed" and surely if there's a drug available to prevent a potentially fatal illness then that drug should be available to all who need/want to take it. Or should that assistance just be limited to other (more conventionally acceptable) weaknesses?

Should the NHS be funding the cost of leathers and helmets to protect the lives of those who choose to ride motorcycles? Would the cost be prohibitive? Or would it be cheaper than treating injuries?

From the comments under the article Bags referred to:

"In reality - being pragmatic - we could spend - 20p a day per child, eradicating global deaths from diahorrea. Such is our depravity and decadence, society had been coerced, against medical advice, into funding what is essentially a recreational drug.
The article plays devil's advocate well with its insane logic... 'We do one crazy thing over here (obesity), so why not repeat the process over here (STDs) as well."

To be available on the NHS of course. Why should anyone curb their pleasures?

Maybe at this very moment in time drug companies, financ ed by the tobacco industry, are working on a pill to allow smokers to smoke forty a day with no ill effects.

Linsco yes , my great grandmother died from a strangulated hernia because they could not afford a Doctor . That left my Mother , only a child herself, to bring up 4 siblings . We just don`t know how lucky we are to have the NHS .

That was

That Chatas, of course, daphnebroon.

To the person who condemned un-helmeted cyclists, can I just say, spoken like a true (road hogging?) motorist.

As you would with someone at risk of HIV.

Advise strongly, but treat.

What about those who sit on their bums and stuff their faces, or those who drink themselves into oblivion, or those who smoke? Should these people be denied all medical assistance which is available. At the moment of indulgence do these people think of the consequences?

Oh dear. Am I now gonna be accused of being hetero-phobic?

I'm not sure I agree with contraception being freely available for all on the NHS. For some, yes, but not for all. Pay for yer pleasure!

'The Department of Health admitted it did not know whose remit the drug falls under. Now an HIV charity, the National Aids Trust, has taken the issue to judicial review and has a ruling that it is NHS England’s responsibility.

HIV prevention is currently the responsibility of local authorities, with treatment NHS England's remit, but according to a leaked letter from the public health minister, all commissioning of antiretrovirals is normally done by NHS England. Truvada, however, is both an antiretroviral and a preventative drug.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and Aids noted in 2013 that there was a risk that the changes brought in by the Health and Social Care Act would harm HIV prevention efforts by splitting responsibilities for prevention and treatment.'

From the NHA link earlier.
The problem is that they cannot decide who should pay for it, so it could be a choice of children's services or drugs paid for by the council. It's not just a question of the NHS.

How sad, though, that some world-renowned treatments which would help the lives of sick children are not available here on the NHS or are very strictly rationed.

How must their parents feel when they hear that some treatments are to be made available for flawed and messy adults who have made stupid choices with expensive, dangerous consequences.

"The principle underlying our health service is that humans are flawed and messy, make stupid choices with expensive, dangerous consequences. And we should prevent them if we can. It's cheaper — and they might not die".

Janice Turner, Times yesterday

Hear, hear! LSP & lazi. People had (some still have) the same so-called moral objection to the contraceptive pill.

I think the cost of this preventive drug is a gnat's bite compared with costs incurred by the elderly, especially over 70s. Take a look at the Guardian site "How much do I cost the NHS".

Linsco. Someone born in 1948 I guess. I remember, even as a child, how the wonder of a free service was greeted by people who had struggled to pay doctors' and dentists' bills.

Maybe I'm not understanding some aspects. Plenty of people on Any Questions and Any Answers seemed confused.
To take advantage of the drug it has to be taken everyday, like the contraceptive pill. It will avoid those who take it becoming HIV positive, as do condoms. I'm unconvinced that men and women with a sex life involving multiple partners and possibly alcohol and other drugs will be sufficiently organised and reliable to use it. I can see its advantage for an established couple one of whom is already HIV positive.
As Jings said earlier some think it works like a morning after pill, well, no, it doesn't. When would a sexually active young person go on it? 16? 18? How long must it be taken to kick in? Would someone whose relationship breaks up bother to keep on taking it?
Anticipating contradiction but interested in feedback.

Just playing Devil's advocate here! but which generation do you think has gained the most benefits from the NHS? I am really concerned about what the future holds for the next generation.