1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General News NHS England in court over Prep

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by PatrickUK, Aug 2, 2016.

  1. PatrickUK

    Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Messages:
    6,304
    Likes Received:
    1,533
    Location:
    England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
  2. 741852963

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Two minds on this:

    Great:
    -"Might" help reduce the transmission of HIV (see below)

    Bad:
    -"Might" make people feel invulnerable. The drug is not a 100% infallible prevention against HIV (nor are condoms). Ideally if people want to be safer they should wear condoms and reduce promiscuity/sex with total strangers. In reality it appears Truvada seems to be taken amongst promiscuous groups, where "barebacking" is unfortunately the norm. Do we believe at risk men taking Truvada are going to still wear condoms? I doubt it personally - ALTHOUGH there is the argument its better for everyone that they are taking Truvada and barebacking then going without any protection.
    -The expense. £5000 a year for a drug is not cheap. Yes there is the argument that it is cheaper than HIV treatment - but that treatment can be prevented in most instances through safer sex practices and condom use. It's probably going to be "either/or" which means the benefit is reduced.
    -The NHS is already struggling and there are so many underfunded treatment
    drugs for serious illnesses
    -This may make gay people less safe in respect of worsened public perception.
    -Like all drugs it carries side effects

    This isn't always a "necessary" drug in that respect, and I can see why the wider public opinion will be poor.

    It is expensive, and essentially its largely a "lifestyle" or "recreational" drug for want of a better word. Its primarily for people who voluntarily take the choice to engage in riskier sexual practices. I do see the argument though of some people wanting "additional" protection from condoms though.

    Really I think a more pressing issue of gay men's health funding is the HPV vaccine. This is currently given to all girls (as they can catch the virus from men during intercourse), yet gay men are not vaccinated and are put at risk of the harm's of the virus (potentially cancer). Calls to vaccinate gay men have been slow and met with real resistance/barriers from the NHS funds who seem to be intent on labelling it unnecessary.

    EDIT: I can see an additional benefit for gay couples where one party has HIV and they want to prevent transferral (by combining Truvada with condoms). The difficulty is this is unchartered territory really, we don't really have any similar long-term "preventative" treatments for perfectly healthy individuals - only one-offs like vaccines.
     
    #2 741852963, Aug 2, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016