Michael_3165 Posted August 4, 2016 Author Share Posted August 4, 2016 I am NOT arguing against funding. In fact it makes sense because of the longer term impact if funding is denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted August 4, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted August 4, 2016 Â Â Don't get why anyone would want poo on their willy. Good to know... Plop and rusty pipes did a right fucking number on me and my well-being over the last cunting year. It causes illness. Yet, a tweak of my nipples and back dirt becomes an aphrodisiac. Illness. Telling yiz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Weird post but Ill try and post something pertinent   1) Should the general public fork out money for HIV patients? We are not talking about cancer, dementia or other drug types where there is no personal contribution to the disease or illness. Most people won't get cancer or dementia through any behaviours (usually). It could be argued that the majority of those with a HIV diagnosis have so due to life decisions - occasionally broken condoms, blood transfusions and mother>baby infections occur but I would hazard a guess that IV drug use and unsafe sex are a huge contributing factor. At the same time we cannot just write off people - some very talented people with families and friends and lives to live just because of a stigmatised diagnosis.  Having worked in the NHS, and seeing what a complete and utter cluster fuck it is behind the scenes, to the extent it's amazing that anything gets done on the 'frontline' Then the actual costing is a complete misnoma of a discussion, leading to selectivised treatment based on genetics and predispositon. You then go down a horrendous road from there to looking at pre screening and screening to see who can and who cannot have certain drugs, much like the 'post code' lottery of days gone by.  I'm battling the NHS on multiple levels through sheer incompetence on their part which has seen my 'official transition' and my effective human rights disappear, all because of  a fuck up at GP level.  You either have a one size fits all system or you have a drastically revised NHS. where GP's, scripts, A&E and pallative care are free, as in totally. and then a NI (For that what it is, with higher premium) based health care system, effectively privatising the NHS in one stroke. 2) Where does personal responsibility end and state responsibility begin? If a person has a diagnosis of HIV through lifestyle choices should it be down to the state (i.e. taxpayer) to mop up the financial burden for those poor choices? If the state doesn't pay for PREP drugs then HIV will continue to persist and more people will possibly be infected longer term. We also need to be realistic. Some people will not, no matter what, make changes that benefit themselves. This situation has been going on since the 80s and is prevalent in countries where condom use is frowned upon (for religious reasons often). We have to face a situation that we can't change.  This question, is beyond insane, it really is. Blackmarket will always exist, and even banning imports or Credit Card payments and everything else is not going to stop people getting prescription drugs 'off-label' cant alter free will!  The state doesnt have to be 'guardian' but putting the focus on one group is  nuts. Call it duty of care for citizens.3) Does the benefit of PREP outweigh the cost? HIV drugs cost around £7000 a year plus 6 monthly blood tests for the monitoring of those drugs in the system. We then have to take into account the impact of HIV drugs on the body and the potential financial implication for those physical complaints those drugs can create. Is paying for PREP a better deal than funding a lifetime of HIV drugs? I think that condom use is the best form of protection and that PREP should be for those who, for whatever reason, condoms haven't been effective.  Condom's probably have a higher failure rate than reported, that's through anecdotal evidence for sure, but if some one wants to limit their exposure thus prolonging life, and it's available, why shouldnt it be an option? Do you want to play 'God' or Malthus?4) Does making PREP more widely available condone unsafe sex? Does not having PREP available give the message that one should take personal choices more seriously? If you know that you cannot get PREP and that you would have to experience the unpleasantness of HIV drugs, would that in any way influence your lifestyle? We cannot deny the fact that there are some people who take risks with their health no matter how many ad campaigns 'educate' otherwise. Anyone that denies that are fairly delusional. The question then is WHY are people risking their own health?  You know that pretty much post 50 no one gives a shit any more, the 1980's aids thing scared the generation so out of their minds that they have reached a point where they just dont care any more, given that their life expectancy is much lower in terms of life left to live. They generally dont care which is why STI's are now afaik highest in this age group. 5) Are there ethical dilemmas with not funding PREP? I would say that we have a few issues here. If we fund PREP at £400 a person per month but we don't fund some cancer drugs, dementia drugs etc are we acting ethically? If we don't fund PREP and we have more people with the full blown HIV infection we will have to fund more in the longer term... is that the right thing to do?  Blinkered and totally missing the point.. Black and white binary does not answer the question, it just leads to further questions. Take a punt see if it works, there will be study groups and all sorts before this gets rolled out on general NHS anyway.  FFS, there is a disclaimer on many drugs including some Cancer and hormonal therapies that have to be given, that taking these drugs we are prescribing is ill advised as it will harm your health and potentially kill you!  6) If we fund PREP what else should we fund? Gym classes for obese people? Gastric band/bypass surgeries? Smoking replacement therapy? Liver transplants for alcoholics at the expense of the middle aged healthy man or woman with no alcohol abuse? I know the NHS do some of these things already but we get into that whole debate about who we help and who we don't. If we refuse PREP drugs to high risk HIV patients should we refuse the transplant for the alcoholic or the gastric band for the compulsive eaters? Is that different because it is an addiction?  Open your eyes mate..  all those are funded on the NHS, that doesn't think in those terms but hey, ya know. One group is not more important to the other. It's the collective health of the nation that ultimately decides what will help  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted August 4, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted August 4, 2016 Plop and rusty pipes did a right fucking number on me and my well-being over the last cunting year. It causes illness. Yet, a tweak of my nipples and back dirt becomes an aphrodisiac. Illness. Telling yiz. Your opinion on the back passage transcends love and borders on obsession. Â It's almost like an urban myth. Told on a dark night amongst only the most daring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 Â 2) Where does personal responsibility end and state responsibility begin? If a person has a diagnosis of HIV through lifestyle choices should it be down to the state (i.e. taxpayer) to mop up the financial burden for those poor choices? Â What's the alternative, just send them out the back to die quietly whilst preaching about the need for greater personal responsibility? Of the 350,000 reported cancer cases in 2013, 147,000 of them were considered preventable by cancer research UK, the vast majority of which are down to "lifestyle choices" (i.e. smoking, drinking). If people aren't educated enough to make the right lifestyle choices, it's the responsibility of the state to take care of them, because it was the responsibility of the state to educate them in the first place. At least some of that argument is relevant to this discussion. Â Also I think you've turned the actual question, which was initially "Who should provide this free treatment, the NHS or local councils?" to "Should we provide this free treatment if people can't be counted on to make better lifestyle choices?" And my question is, what does any of this realistically have to do with a "nanny state'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted August 5, 2016 Moderators Share Posted August 5, 2016 Some A1 FOX News "Libertarianism" in the OP. Â Abhorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted August 5, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted August 5, 2016 I'm too tired to answer you, Michael, but I have to say that you'd love it here. As Butch says, it's all very libertarian wing of the GoP — reminds me of Paul LePage: http://www.pressherald.com/2016/04/20/lepage-vetoes-bill-aimed-at-increasing-access-to-heroin-anti-overdose-drug/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted August 5, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted August 5, 2016 The bigger question is if HIV people should be given employment benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SiMania Posted August 5, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted August 5, 2016 Or if people on benefits should be given HIV. That'll teach the work shy buggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex1 Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 I suppose our European friends will want to get in on the act too....i dunno, coming over here, getting in on the act and taking our HIV. Pah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted August 5, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted August 5, 2016 Only if it's indigenous HIV. We'll be having none of that foreign HIV stuff, you don't know what's in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 African Bum Disease should stay in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted August 5, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted August 5, 2016 We need to forge stronger ties with the HIV of our partners in the Commonwealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 The brightest and best chutney ferrets from abroad should remain at home to add to the prosperity of their home grown big gay plague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Coconut Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 In the former eastern bloc most of the BAD AIDS comes from dirty needles. Fucking philistines. Do it properly or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.