To ask why the NHS funds viagra?

[crunchymint]

Yes only men who are impotent due to medical problems get viagra on the NHS. But last year there were nearly 3 million prescriptions issued for viagra. Is this really the best use of NHS money?

How can sex with no penetration be sex?

Well It should be. But why remove a treatment for men? Then men lose out and women would get the treatment. So then it would be a reverse hierarchy?

And I would quite happily pay for birth control if someone could sort out my problem so I could actually have no consequence sex whereas as it stands now I have it very rarely and infact it's purely only to endure the pain to ttc a child and then to go through a significant amount of miscarriages likely due to the endometriosis as well only to be told that actually there's not enough funding to investigate recurrent miscarriage and to pay privately to have tests done for that as well (there is treatments and medications in other countries just not in this country !)

So tell me again why isn't help provided on the nhs for females?

I have no objections to younger men being prescribe viagra if they have a erectile disfunction, but my neighbour's ex-husband is prescribed them (in his sixties) and sells them to his fellow taxi-drivers. (If I could prove it rather than know it (his daughter told me), I would shop the bastard).

The issue here crunchy is that your perfectly valid point about women's health not being taken seriously and given adequate treatment or consideration has been totally sidelined because you chose to frame it as a senseless and irrelevant attack on men getting viagra prescriptions.

Stopping viagra prescriptions wouldn't help one single woman who struggles to orgasm. You can't make women's health better by making men's health worse.

Stupid thread, missed opportunity to have a sensible discussion.

So your question is really Why aren't women's health issues taken as seriously as men's?
Or are you just making a point specifically about sexual health?
Or just orgasm?
I'm a bit confused. Doesn't help I haven't read the ivf thread......

Biscuit Smoking cessation makes total sense for the NHS to fund. Very cost effective.

madamginger It is the same thing, simply not under the brand name. And when it was still under patent, viagra was prescribed by the NHS.

Pregancy and birth can lead to disability and death siwel123, a man not being able to penetrate a person with a penis does not. Makes complete sense to offer free birth control.

women’s health services received £1,775,766 to £2,048,766 morefunding than men’s over the past five years.

Do I shove my limp penis inside my wife and wiggle it? . No I don't.

I'm surprised you weren't ordered to tie two chopsticks yo your nob Swivel

I don't "lose out" when Viagra is prescribed to my husband.

Plus I net out the cost as T1 diabetes put paid to sperm count.

And I self funded 6 rounds of IVF.

And I don't qualify for family allowance.

I'm happy to take a little blue pill back.

Even the cost of birth and pre and post natal care in the NHS will be cheaper than birth control.

Again women don't need sex?

I thought Viagra wasn't just for erectile dysfunction, didn't they find that out as a secondary thing when it was used for something else? One of those..? Not sure if it was then withdrawn (if you excuse the pun) for the initial use and then put over exclusively to ED? If it is one of those things that can be bought over the counter then it probably shouldn't be available on prescription. But then there are quite a few things like that, aren't there. Opens the floodgates, that.

But why remove a treatment for men? Then men lose out and women would get the treatment. So then it would be a reverse hierarchy

There’s no endless pot of money. Hierarchy should be done on need. But it isn’t.

Again I will quote a research study women’s health services received £1,775,766 to £2,048,766 morefunding than men’s over the past five years.

No one said it wasnt uncomfortable but you are making out viagra will just benefit the man and its for his enjoyment only. When it will clearly benefit both partners.

As for vaginal dryness from menopause pretty certain a heck of alot of women are prescribed hrt which helps with that.

And that's only in London's 32 trusts

Could you post a link? I’d be interested to see the breakdown because I can hazard a guess at how it works

siwel Can you provide a link for that?

It doesn't help anyone stopping prescribing viagra but when the nhs is on its knees why should it be paying for it ?
I've also had issues with a young baby with medical needs but does anyone know they no longer fund that babies only source of nutrition in the form of formula milk for medical needs. Oh no they don't have money to do that anymore and it's not a formula that is available to buy on a shelf in a shop either and at 60.00 for the equivalent of a size of a normal tin of formula it's pretty fucking expensive whenever that's the only source of nutrition for a young baby so why fund stuff like viagra when we can't afford to fund vital stuff for medical needs. I think everyone should start to contribute a lot more towards their own medicines and if viagra is so cheap what stops men from buying it over the counter the same as we buy most other things !

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-06-25/male-health-initiatives-get-less-money-than-those-aimed-at-women

HeedMove HRT now is only prescribed very carefully and only for a very short amount of time.

From Nuffield health trust

siwel From the link you posted - The huge gap in spending is in part because a lot of the money directed at women is for services aimed at children or women caring for older residents or women who have suffered domestic violence.
So basically because women are carers or are more likely to be badly beaten up by men.

siwel That graph shows more is spent on men than women. I suspect that is because they took children's services out of the cost. Nuffield tends to do quality research with decent methodology.