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

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".

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

"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

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 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.

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!

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

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?

Advise strongly, but treat.

As you would with someone at risk of HIV.

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

That Chatas, of course, daphnebroon.

That was

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 .

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.

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

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."

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?

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?

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

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!

Very true SueDonim. (Like your name).

Thanks, Lazigirl.

It shouldn't be (regard ed as any different from any other things we do) Fund it yourself. Or fund the lot of it. Bring on the drug to prevent lung cancer in reckless smokers... the drug to prevent pancreatic cancer in binge drinkers.... I'm sure society can afford it all. It's just priorities isn't it? Who cares about kids struggling to breathe anyway?

Are you the suedonim from Mumsnet? I'm the jangly.