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

There is currently an epidemic of STDs among the over 60s who probably don't know how to avoid HIV either.

Btw, it's not a morning after type pill. Some of these posts seem to think it is. It would be taken daily. Every day. Funded continuously.

Gay men know how to avoid HIV.

This could so swing public opinion against acceptance of gay men in society. It could even encourage horrible gay bashing amongst some sectors. Not a good decision.

And the drug is to be prescribed primarily to gay men, no matter how much GNHQ would like to turn up their delicate little noses at the thought. Or rather, at the expression of that thought.

The point of view of this journalist, who is gay, is interesting:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3722728/Why-gay-man-think-morally-wrong-ANDREW-PIERCE-says-disagrees-High-Court-s-decision-fund-HIV-drug-NHS.html

Yes indeed, to all the positive comments that followed the homophobic one.

What would include 'funding someone's sex life'? Treatment for non-HIV STDs? Contraception? Pregnancy and labour care? Fertility treatment?

If this drug contributes to the eventual eradication of this terrible disease then I am all for it. Some people have been infected through no fault of their own.

The grandchildren of any of us on this forum could become a victim of AIDS

The 2014 stats show that whilst Homosexuals are in the majority 3055 cases, heterosexuals are close behind with 2186 cases, so this does affect everyone. In fact during the mid 2000 - 2010s hetrosexuals were far ahead with over 4800 cases in 2004 (probably because they did not perceive a risk)

So IMO, GNHQ are justified in changing the title.

Source :-
ratrust.org.uk/me-and-hiv/hiv-statistics/heterosexual

Funny G&T, I was going to mention the Brexit money!

ill not 'I'll'

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

WmKF "but there has to be the political will" precisely, but there isn't, so until we have a change of political will the NHS has to cope with what it has.

But of course there is all that money we will save as a result of Brexit. How much did Boris promise the NHS?

Pigs might fly.

am

G&T there's always more money for the NHS, but there has to be the political will. As Iam says, we spend less than most of our EU counterparts (and many other major countries). That's not the perception of most people, which is relevant. And cosmetic surgery for mental health issues like low self-esteem causing 'significant psychological distress' is still going on. I'm am an advocate for mental health, but surgery is not the answer to this kind of problem.

Unfortunately we live in the real world, the NHS is not going to get more money.

If it's a question of long-term costs then it's much cheaper to fund this drug than to treat the resulting condition, HIV.

I agree that people ought to be more responsible but sadly they aren't.

And yes, I agree Iam

As a country we can afford to fund the NHS to a greater degree than we do. We spend less than other european countries.
I do feel we should insist that visitors pay for treatment. It can't be too difficult administratively to ensure that holiday makers/non british residents pay up for treatment here.

As far as I'm aware cosmetic surgery for other than medical reasons is not funded by the NHS, so my question stands, what would you cut to pay for it.
I already said that this has to be funded from another part of the NHS.

If all paid more into the NHS it would be fine for those that could afford it, but even then would some prefer it to be spent on cancer care etc.

Condoms are already free for people in groups who are at risk.

If I had to make a choice of what I would stop to allow this drug to be subscribed, it would be cosmetic surgery such as breast enlargement or nose jobs unless there is a physical medical problem (not breast reduction, or bariatric surgery). Hard choices always have to be made, but this drug could save the NHS money in the long run.

A better option would be to fund the NHS better and I would either take money from the defence budget or raise basic income tax by 1p.

Education about condoms/safe sex etc has just about reached its limits. You're never going to get everyone to conform to those rules. At least with this new pill, it will avoid the need for the life-long anti-virals required if someone develops HIV. I doubt millions of people are going to be rushing off to their doctors to get prescriptions, they'll be screened carefully.

It can also be of benefit to hetero couples as shown here. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35324450

The NHS already pays for many treatments for 'lifestyle choices' such as obesity, smoking & alcohol-related conditions and I'm not sure this is any different.

NHS funds are finite.

£450 per month x the number of people in the UK who are at risk because they have sex with multiple partners, this must be many millions a year, this must come from somewhere, reduction in cancer treatment perhaps ? Which would you choose if funds had to be found from another part of the NHS ?

The NHS supply contraceptive pills free, so let's have free condoms.

Presumably it is cheaper to prevent infection than to treat fullblown AIDS and its complications.

I was going to post that too.
Prevention is better than cure - or prolonged treatment and possibly no cure.

It is not just gay people who have unprotected sex.
That's what I meant earlier when I said One could say why should the NHS fund the morning after pill, abortions etc
More consequences which are at present funded.

According to the figures in the paper today half the new cases every year are heterosexual. Presumably it is cheaper to prevent infection than to treat fullblown AIDS and its complications.

Well said Wilma