Can't they just use condoms?

[jd.linklater]

The High Court has told the NHS in England it can fund a drug that can prevent HIV - after health bosses argued it was not their responsibility. If the NHS lose their appeal against this ruling, it will cost them close to £2.5 million a year to enable a relative minority of 500 gay men to have unprotected sex . Whatever happened to the idea of taking personal responsibility?

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

[astrologica]

My thoughts exactlyJD. I have been having the occasional rant on here for years about the lack of personal responsibility in this country.

There are those who will argue that by taking this drug they are exercising responsibility, but I would question that. It would only be prescribed to those who are at a high risk of contracting HIV...i.e...those who have multiple partners and are not in a stable relationship.

Whatever happened to restraint? HIV is not the only sexually transmissible disease, so taking this drug would make it easier for other diseases to be passed on.

There are so many more worthy things that that money could be spent on...i.e. People who fall ill through inherited diseases, or children who contract cancers. Much better than spending it on people who could avoid contracting HIV by exercising restraint, not being promiscuous, or using condoms.

The NHS is chronically short of cash and it has to choose carefully who gets treatment. I remember feeling outraged when the NHS in Wales announced that it was going to pay for all those silly women who had had faulty breast implants to have them replaced free of charge. I remember thinking that if they could afford to pay to have them put in, then they could afford to have them taken out.

There........rant over.....I feel better now.

[cookiecookuk]

this made me angry as well as the people at risk have a life choice to say yes or no to unprotected sex  but there are a lot of people out there who are ill by no fault of there own...NHS put the money in the right place please..

[evoman3957]

There's too many people in this country / world, who expect OTHERS to pay for THEIR actions/ choices.  We may all walk different roads............so if YOU picked it........WALK IT !!

[bankhaunter]

Preventing HIV may be cheaper than treating it.

£400 spent on prevention or £300,000 spent on treatment over the lifetime of the patient..

[upthecreekyetagain]

I thought the NHS was going to be swimming in money soon when we leave the EU or was that simply a lie? 🙂

[soppysofty]

Why should the NHS treat HIV/AIDS?

This is a totally avoidable illness/condition that is caused soley by the actions of the person who contracts the illness.

If you do not have unprotected sex you cannot contract HIV/AIDS - FACT.

If you wish to use these drugs to allow/permit a certain lifestyle then that is your choice but you pay for them.

£400.00 is a small price to pay for a promiscuous lifestyle and those who wish to use this drug are, by and large, in a position to afford to pay for it.

There are a number of 'charities' set up for AIDS/HIV, why do they not purchase these drugs for their 'clients'?

Money is tight in the NHS at the moment and every avenue needs to be explored.

Take our situation, my wife has oesteoporosis and scoliosis and has had a major operation to correct her spine at a cost of around £125 000.00.

As a result of the operation some 6 years ago she now has dowagers stoop (curvature of the spine from the middle of the shoulder blades to her neck).

This can be relieved by a breast reduction operation at a cost of £5000.00 but our local NHS Trust deems all breast reductions to be cosmetic surgery and so will not fund it.  We are fighting their decision.

If my wife does not have the reduction surgery soon then she will require further spinal correction surgery in the next 5 - 10 years at a cost (in todays prices) of some £85 000.00.

Can you work it out because we can't.

[bankhaunter]

Why should the NHS treat HIV/AIDS?

This is a totally avoidable illness/condition that is caused soley by the actions of the person who contracts the illness.

That could be said of many conditions, should the overweight person who contracts diabetes not be treated

If you do not have unprotected sex you cannot contract HIV/AIDS - FACT.

That may be the most common way but it isn't the only one. It should also be remembered that people don't always know they have the condition.

£400.00 is a small price to pay for a promiscuous lifestyle

Who says promiscuity by the person who becomes infected, is always involved ?

those who wish to use this drug are, by and large, in a position to afford to pay for it.

Evidence please?

As for breast reduction surgery, it is available on the NHS for those who fulfill the criteria, I know someone who had it done.

Assuming your wife does fit the criteria and it sounds like she does, I would suggest you push harder and kick up a fuss. 

Take it higher up the ladder.

[evoman3957]

We're talking about people here, you give them an easy way out and they'll take it EVERY time.  You create a society where everybody ELSE pays for other peoples life style choices and the takers will keep taking and the mugs will keep giving. The takers have the least / or no shame, embarrassment or sense of disgrace as to the way they are.......FACT......the mugs that pay for it are life's " Carpets ", they have people's feet wiped on them; as long as they'll put up with it. Do what you want, but PAY for it YOURSELF !!!

[bankhaunter]

Do what you want, but PAY for it YOURSELF !!!

So where do you draw the line?   Does everybody have to have a lifestyle which carries absolutely no risk of any sort? Is that even possible?

  What about the old lady who has a couple of sherries, gets slightly wobbly, falls and breaks her hip, does she pay for it herself?

Or the motorcyclist who skids on a bend?   The person out walking in the hills who has a fall? The person who rides a horse? The person who trips on a loose rug?   They can all be blamed for their own misfortune.

We could get it down to examining people's diet who get cancer or heart disease, in order to determine how much they should pay.

The blame culture would be riding high.

[evoman3957]

I agree, as you've so aptly demonstrated, if setting the parameters relied on common sense; nothing would EVER get done..........as indeed appears to be the case.

[bankhaunter]

But whose commonsense would be acceptable, who would be the judge?

You would have individuals or panels whose job it was to examine anybody receiving treatment, to see if the NHS could get out of paying for it.

[cee-dee]

The fault with your argument regarding those accidents is that those concerned didn't deliberately set out to put themselves in danger, it would have been a simple misfortune whereas those putting themselves at risk of contracting HIV deliberately followed their chosen lifestyle with others of similar ilk knowing what the risks were.

[evoman3957]

Nobody's, that's just the point and that applies to so many things. That's why the species will continue to sink ever deeper into the sewer, that it doesn't have the mental capacity, or wherewithal, to get itself out of.

[bankhaunter]

If anybody indulges in an activity which carries a risk, they are knowingly putting themselves at that risk.

Condoms are not 100% effective, if a woman was told it would be dangerous for her if she got pregnant but despite her partner using a condom, she did get pregnant, should she pay for any treatment?

[Anonymous]

Maybe we could appoint a Named Person to see if we are allowed free treatment or not. 

[bankhaunter]

They could record 'undeserving' points, so many for eating bacon, riding a bicycle etc.

[evoman3957]

Perhaps we could make it the person who controls the purse strings, then they could allocate the limitless pots of money at our disposal; to each and every " Rectum " who comes waltzing in to be treated, regardless of what irresponsible, stupid, dangerous or reckless activity brought them there.  Talk about society getting what they deserve, oh boy........do they just !!!

[**forum-decorum**]

---

As for breast reduction surgery, it is available on the NHS for those who fulfill the criteria, I know someone who had it done.

Assuming your wife does fit the criteria and it sounds like she does, I would suggest you push harder and kick up a fuss. 

Take it higher up the ladder.

---

Not any more, my daughter has now twice been refused the surgery and she does fit the criteria xxx

[soppysofty]

My wife more than meets the criteria and has a letter from her Orthapedic Consultant not only supporting her case but insisting 'on medical grounds' that the procedure is carried out as a matter of some urgency.

Still we get stonewalled.

And then those who 'develop' self inflicted injuries get medication that costs over 20 times more than my wife's procedure given to them for free or, at worse, the cost of a prescription.

And do not get me started on the Friday/Saturday night drunks that clog up A and E at an average cost to the NHS of over £1000.00 each.

What is happening to our country?

Will the last one out please turn off the lights.