You are here . on the pale blue dot


Please note that 'Anonymous' comments without a pseudonym are not published.

Comments for publication should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties please.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites the comments will be removed as spam.

Wednesday, 3 August 2016

It's not a game


A view from the US

Not content with changing the rules which protect the sanctity of marriage the gay lobby now expects the State to pay for unprotected sex via the NHS to help prevent them contracting HIV: "Aids campaigners are celebrating a watershed victory after the high court ruled that NHS England can pay for 'game-changer' drugs that prevent people being infected with HIV by their partners".

While it may be cheaper in the long run to prevent rather than treat Aids, there has to be added to the cost of the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drug the cost of treating any side effects plus treating the added risk of STDs which is rising among gay and bisexual men. But there is more to this than the money. There is a moral dimension.

With limited resources to provide essential treatment there are, for example, needy children with cystic fibrosis, people with cancer who have to apply for funding to just give them some hope through no fault of their own. Twenty-five vital cancer drugs have been deemed 'too expensive' for the NHS.

With so many pressing health needs the tax payer should not be asked to fund a life-style choice at the expense of the needy.

Postscript [08.08.2016]

Transgender ‘men’ given IVF treatment by the NHS. Women who have undertaken sex reassignment surgery to become 'men' are being given IVF treatment on the NHS.

Conservative MP Peter Bone questioned why the NHS is choosing to fund this, especially considering its limited resources for more necessary medical services:

 "The NHS is does not have endless pots of cash and, with accident and emergency departments and hospitals bursting at the seams, we should stop pretending that it does," he said. 
"When you go into realms like this, I am not sure why the taxpayer should be funding it. It’s something that people could surely fund privately if they want to. We’ve had changes in the Cancer Drugs Fund which will stop some cancer drugs being available to people on cost grounds.
"I just sometimes ask if the NHS is getting its priorities right."

3 comments:

  1. Absolutely agree with you A B - the decision is morally wrong.
    If the persons involved really loved each other,then each would refrain from practices which put each other's health at risk in transmitting disease.
    If ,on the other hand, any person chooses to engage in a risky recreational activity ,whether it be sky diving,going on a trek to the Arctic,or indeed questionable sexual pastimes,then you pay your own insurance. If that insurance means that you need to buy medicine,then so be it!
    I do not want or need to pay for your entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you are Gay you get your way.
    As you say what of poor people suffering. through no fault of their own, who are unable to have drugs on the NHS due to expense. Shameful!

    ReplyDelete
  3. What should the NHS pay for? Should our tax pay for HIV prevention which is caught ,by choice, during recreational activity, or do you think there is more moral justification for vaccinating children against Meningitis B?
    The meningitis jab is available on the NHS to children born after March 2015, which means we have just paid over £100 to get this essential vaccination done in Boots.
    No-one chooses to catch meningitis, and those who suffer would gladly avoid the infection if possible.
    There is a way to avoid becoming infected with HIV and this does not need spelling out.
    Alternatively Gay men may choose to avoid the risk of AIDS ,by purchasing PrEP medication.

    "The law is an ass".

    ReplyDelete