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

jingls

And I agree that rationing of other essentials eg cataract operations is very wrong because - if they are looking at long-term costs as one factor - it is not cost-effective to refuse that operation and let someone nearly lose their sight.

However, I still believe that older people should still pay a reduced NI charge towards the NHS, means tested (surely not difficult).

Very recently while in our Doctors waiting room a nice young girl walks up to reception and asks for 24 condoms, the receptionist gives her 3 packs and then the girl said so that we could hear, busy weekend coming up, the condoms were free at our surgery.

I'm not a regularly at the doctors and I didn't really want to ask the receptionist how often this type of request came about but I can't help thinking how life as changed.

We used to talk about sex all the time but only with our friends and the main question on a Monday morning, at school, was about sex, like "Did you have it " we were were only 11 and all of us lied at least I think we lied.

I don't know where this is going but life moves on and now we talk about a drug to prevent HIV, not to mention the after morning pill, and talking from bitter experience if you miss type into google you end up with a load of porn and just to prove how old we are getting I feel as through I'm standing on a soap box, but it is Sunday morning.

Ah! It could be because I've told them in the past to sod off with their snotty emails. That'll be it.

I have! Nothing!

Bloody sneaky.

nhap.org/court-ruling-on-drug-to-prevent-hiv-highlights-lack-of-responsibility-and-accountability-of-the-nhs-in-england-since-the-health-and-social-care-act-2012/

They usually tell me, jingl. Check your emails.

Oh, they deleted one of my posts and I can't remember what I said!!! Fiddle! Wonder what it was.

Totally agree LSP and with all the other Gransnetters who share your point of view. What a very pragmatic, non judgemental group you are, and am so pleased that there are such balanced and thoughtful posters on here.

You can't object to a drug because of a moral stance, almost every illness is a lifestyle choice of one sort or another. The food that we eat, what we drink, how we exercise. If their is a drug that will mean fewer people become infected then that's wonderful and should be celebrated.

But I don't want to get in any more arguments about it.

I just can't reconcile myself to it. Not if it is to be given freely to the gay bar frequenters. Just seems wrong. I have taken the costs argument on board too.

I can't be homophobic. Because I don't hate anybody. In fact, I'm inclined to veer in the other direction! I only hate the really bad people.

Reading all the arguments for and against , I can see it from both sides now . I posted earlier that I thought it should not be funded by the NHS but some good points have been made in favour and I can see that I could have not thought it through properly .

If we are talking about cost effectiveness, Why don't they think it is more cost effective to treat cataracts and hips more promptly, when delay leads to more damage (in the case of hips) , less independence, depression, the possible need for carers etc. Is it because we are old and have had our lives so quality of life no longer counts?

About HIV in women other countries.

Please sign.

www.one.org/international/take-action/girls-everywhere/

There's a lot of moral judgment going on here. As has been said a number of times, loads and loads of conditions are caused by lifestyle choices but this one seems to be coming under fire because it is linked to S-E-X.

This drug will have been recommended because epidemiological research will have shown that it is more cost-effective to prevent HIV than to treat it once it develops. Anything that keeps down the rate of HIV in the general population has to be a good thing, imo.

"Younger people" today, sorry!

Do you really think that is any different from past generations? I think many younger role today do exactly that, i.e.take responsibility for their own health, whereas a round of golf followed by a G&T and high calorie dinner in the clubhouse was not infrequently the extent of some people's exercise in past generations!
No doubt our (great ) grandparents clucked as much about "young people today" and their irresponsible behaviour.
Never pass up an opportunity to pass judgement

Perhaps we should be thinking of ways to make people take more responsibility for their own health? How do we persuade people to stop smoking, eat healthily, only get pregnant deliberately etc?

We seem to live in a society where we can do whatever we like, without thinking about the consequences, and expect 'them' to sort it out.

If it is cheaper, why don't those that consider themselves at risk self finance it, if they are so against a condom.

JBF, exactly, sleep around and you risk the consequences. It amazes me how some apparently treat sex as though it were just like a glass of wine, drink one and move on to try a different one.
I say apparently, as I know only one person like that, and she has got herself into such fixes having several partners at the same time.

I looked at the drug on line . It's much cheaper than the £450 per month that the NHS is being charged.

Of course, condoms aren't the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Choosing, and staying with, a lifelong partner might be the best way.

But this drug will be prescribed for those with the 'carefree' life styles.

It won't prevent HIV. It is not 100% effective. HIV could increase, through carelessness. The real beneficiaries will be the drug companies.

I think that any medical advance which prevents HIV has to be welcomed. As others have said there are plenty of other instances of the NHS treating lifestyle induced illnesses - type 2 diabetes, for instance,but once you go down the "judgemental" route that some people bring their illness upon themselves, where do you stop?
RTA victims who have been at fault themselves? Cyclists who weren't wearing a helmet? Idiots (?) swimming in known dangerous conditions? Hikers who fall off mountains because of inadequate footwear? Where do you draw the line?
Limited funds in the NHS is a thorny issue because there are so many treatments and procedures which are possible, but often at huge expense - who is to say what should be sacrificed to fund these.
So let's not be too "holier than thou" about people "knowing better"

Over 60s would have been 30+ in the 80s and surely must have been made aware then - or have they forgotten everything they were told?

Everyone knows how to avoid HIV. Or where have they been since the eighties?