To think that the nhs should not pay for anti viral drugs for healthy gay men

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02ks961

Gay men who want to be promiscuous should use condoms to protect against AIDS and other stds. I don't see why someone choosing to have unprotected sex should have this drug paid for by the nhs. Is someone with a lifestyle chaotic enough to have unprotected sex with lots of partners likely to remember to take the pill every day? i feel that £420 per month is a lot to spend on a healthy person who chooses to indulge in risky behaviour.

If these anti vital drugs are used in healthy subjects is there a danger of complacency. I also think that the AIDS virus might mutate and become drug restistant like bacteria and antibiotics.

Yanbu everyone gay or straight should be responsible for their own sexual health.

Somewhat off topic but can I get the hpv vaccine as and adult?

The cost seems high but then again I don't know how much birth control tends to cost or many other medications so it is a bit of a useless figure.

I think that most forms of birth control are fairly cheap for the NHS. If you got the pill privately it would cost £24.99 for six months.

www.dred.com/uk/contraceptive-pill.html

i am not sure that issue is even cost that I feel that healthy gay men should not be prescribed anti virals long term. How well are these drugs tested for long term use in healthy people. If the side affects of these drugs are awful then are they doing damage to the person's body.

WingsofNylon the HPV vaccine is only licensed for use in young people up to age 26.

I'm not even going to answer the OP - who basically just doesn't like the idea of two blokes shagging.

I'm not sure that unprotected sex with lots of partners necessarily equals a chaotic lifestyle. Perhaps it's just fun?

Don't care who people choose to care to have sex with. I don't agree with a healthy person being prescribed drugs at £420 per month on the nhs! Is a lot of money for someone with no medical problems. If someone wants to pay for their own drugs then that is up to them.

I have issue with people having casual unprotected sex whatever their sexual orientation. The risk of STDs is far too high. Its not just AIDS that ruins lives.

Having unprotected sex in a monogenous relationship is no more risky for a gay couple than a hetrosexual couple. There is the risk of infidelity in any relationship, whether its hetrosexual or homosexual.

There is a new HPV vaccine which will be available to women under 45. As I'm 43 next month, I hope they hurry up with it. I'd be annoyed if I missed it by a year or two and then got cervical cancer. I know it's not a 100% panacea but I'd like to give myself the best chance not to get it.

Prevention is better than cure but I am also wondering why only gay men as anyone can get HIV.

It's nothing to do with promiscuity.

Hiv is a health risk to everyone.

Condoms are not 100% reliable.

Treating Hiv and AIDS is much more expensive for the economy.

It's literally a no brainer unless you're a right wing homophobe

The only thing I don't understand is why wouldn't the drug be available to everyone?

It's clearly not only gay men who get HIV. I have no idea if it is even statistically more likely nowadays.

It would sound like a good idea to give it to any adult who wants it though.

It does sound like a lot of money when condoms can be bought for a few quid.

This must be an over-simplification.

I'm having difficulties visualising anyone going into a surgery and saying, "I like shagging random people without condoms, so can you give me drugs to reduce my risk of getting HIV (by up to 86%) instead?"

I think this could work well as a back-up to condoms.

Come on, how many people have got pregnant using condoms. I certainly wouldn't trust my hiv status to them.

OP - your posts come across as if one of your problems about this is that it's going to be prescribed to gay men. You also deny it has anything to do with cost (12.53 post) but then contradict yourself at 13:17 ("Is a lot of money for someone with no medical problems. If someone wants to pay for their own drugs then that is up to them").

The NHS wouldn't fund this if it wasn't cost effective balanced against the cost of lifetime treatment.

What are you worried about? Bad weather because more men are having sex with each other?

I don't suppose NICE will come up with a blanket recommendation to prescribe these drugs to all gay men.

However in some parts of the country HIV infection is pretty prevalent in the gay community, to the extent that any sexual encounter carries a risk regardless of whether or not you use a condom or are promiscuous.

Not to mention that gay men in long term stable relationships with an HIV positive partner would be good candidates for this type of treatment (as would be a heterosexual partner, presumably).

I'm a gay female and was listening to the debate on this yesterday on Radio 4. I don't think it's clear cut and don't think the OP should be accused of being homophobic when she's asking a legitimate question about NHS funding.

I think regarding the cost point, the price will reduce significantly in a few years when the patent for the drug runs out - a generic version will, I assume, be significantly cheaper.

Putting that to one side, though, I admit it seems a little odd to fund something as a preventative measure when there are other preventative measures available (condoms for example).

On the other side of the argument, the NHS funds gastric surgery for the obese, treats patients with cancer who've smoked all their lives, so in that sense I suppose, this isn't very different.

What might be nice is if people across the spectrum took more responsibility for their own healthcare, but then that's another argument entirely.

Plenty of people get pregnant while on the pill as well. The pill is extremely effective PROVIDED you take it every day. I imagine that if you failed to take an anti viral drug every day then you could end up with AIDS. If this drug could be given in a slow release injection that lasted three months then I could see the sense in giving it to drug addicts, proscuites or other really high risk groups. The sort of person who is stupid enough to have regular UNPROTECTED sex with stangers is not likely to be sensible enough to take a pill every day.

No one in their right mind has casual sex without a condom. Its not just protection against aids but other STDs. I can understand why someone might have casual sex with a stranger while drunk as a one off mistake. Would this drug work if taken for a period of time after drunken one night stand? I would not mind NHS money being spent on a 3 month course to be taken after someone did something every stupid while drunk or if a condom split or a needle stick injury or rape.

OP: Your moral stance on sexual behaviour is nothing to do with why people are prescribed drugs on the NHS. Thankfully morality and medicine are quite separate and you don't make the rules.

I am afraid prejudice oozes out of your OP.

NHS guidelines on prescribing anti virals come after years of research: you might have a point that this is a waste of resources. Have you compared the costs of treatment for HIV vs giving these drugs? Can you help us understand your point of view... or do you really not know much about this at all apart from the click bait Daily Mail headline of your OP?

But people don't behave as you would like OP. It would be best if people used condoms, took their pill everyday, didn't use drugs, didn't park in the parent and child parking. But they DO. So the NHS needs to have a look at the best way of helping these people in he most cost effective way. Not everyone is sensible about sex. That is a fact. Lets make our funding work to support at risk people, not moralising. That ship has sailed.

There are areas of the NHS that have collapsed like child mental health. For example very ill teens being held in police cells because of a lack of a bed, children who commit suicide because there is no montoring etc. (These issues often affect young gay people. It would be interesting to know if suicide is a bigger killer of gay teens than AIDS.)

There are ways of preventing the spread of AIDS which are a lot cheaper. I feel that there are better ways of spending £420 a month.

Testing...

The mental health of young teens should be more of a prority.

www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/25711600

The risks of young LGT teens commiting suicide is horrendous.

Infact why don't we revamp the whole of child mental health.

Ok, I have two things to say here. First OP I think as others have said, your posts make it plainly clear what you think of people with HIV (or at least, the people that caught it in a 'bad' way...)

As for the preventative part, It's not just the overall lifetime costs of the meds they will be taking into account - it's the cost of any other opportunistic illnesses, etc - things that people with HIV are more likely to suffer.

By the way, I take these meds myself; amongst other things they have allowed me to have healthy children.

no problem with preventative medicine. no problem with reducing the risks further. risks with condoms should be low, this makes them lower.
your point about drug resistancy is interesting though, does anyone know if that is a pissibility?

I heard that the licence (that's not the right word, the copyright thingy) on the drug runs out in a couple of years time, and after that a generic supply will become available, will be much cheaper then.

Well, so far it's a trial. It has not yet been rolled out, I think. It's like a vaccination, wih the goal that the disease is eventually eradicated or extremely minimised. ? www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/26/hiv-treatment-game-changer-truvada-nhs-trial short article with a more measured tone.

changed - wishing you continued good health.