AIDS? - come to Britian.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by joe-90, 28 Feb 2012.

  1. joinerjohn

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2009
    Messages:
    6,145
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Location:
    Derby
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Good point Pred, but all too often it's not the charities that deny the drugs to patients. It's the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)
    They make the decisions. Not even consultants who specialise in cancer can take the decision to offer treatment, without running it past these guys. NICE is probably run by accountants (as is most of the NHS these days) who don't base drug treatments on anything but monetary considerations. Might cost thousands to prolong someone's life by 3 or 4 yrs They conveniently forget that new, or even cheaper, life saving treatments could just be around the corner, so people could be saved. ;) ;)

    Perhaps time for NICE to step in and refuse treatment for HIV and AIDS.
     
  2. Susiejb

    Joined:
    14 May 2011
    Messages:
    2,945
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    A recent update from Cancer Research on the refusal of a new drug for prostate cancer:

    NICE came to its decision despite acknowledging that abiraterone can extend the lives of those in the final stages of prostate cancer. Results from a clinical trial of abiraterone showed that certain men with advanced prostate cancer who had previously received chemotherapy lived, on average, four months longer when treated with abiraterone.
    Researchers also found that the level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the men who received abiraterone was more likely to fall and on average took longer for their prostate cancer to start growing again.


    You have to wonder how much profit is being made by Glaxo etc. from these life saving drugs...while appreciating there is a huge cost for research, you surely have to question the astronomical final cost to the NHS....as you say the drugs continually improve and go on to save many more lives.

    I don't think we should stop treating HIV/Aids as surely this would just mean that it would not be contained and would become a bigger threat.
     
  3. peaps

    Joined:
    22 Aug 2011
    Messages:
    1,311
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    HIV is fetched into our country in many ways. One is because pervert travel to third world countries and exploite women/men for sex and fetch it back.

    We test much of our drugs in the third world so why not give something back ?
     
  4. peaps

    Joined:
    22 Aug 2011
    Messages:
    1,311
    Thanks Received:
    54
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
  5. joe-90

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Thanks Received:
    960
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    So you think inviting people with AIDS into the country, housing them, treating them and letting them shag about for decades is a good policy?

    How about putting them on the first plane back and let them get on with it where they caught the disease? :confused:
     
  6. Susiejb

    Joined:
    14 May 2011
    Messages:
    2,945
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Where did I say that Joe.

    I was responding to JJ quote regarding NICE:
    "Perhaps time for NICE to step in and refuse treatment for HIV and AIDS"
     
  7. joe-90

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Thanks Received:
    960
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    But that's what it means in the real world - they'll all pile over here for a free life and free treatment. Do you think that is desirable?
     
  8. Susiejb

    Joined:
    14 May 2011
    Messages:
    2,945
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Well you can't just stop treating everyone who has it Joe.
    If you had it and you were dying maybe you would take a chance and come here for treatment too if you knew it might mean survival.
    I am not saying that is right or good I am just making a point.
     
  9. joe-90

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Thanks Received:
    960
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    So send them packing - not our problem Do you want rabid dogs roaming free too? If not - then why not?
     
  10. libby lou lou

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2006
    Messages:
    3,712
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Susiejb, sometimes it does'nt work when your too NICE.
     
  11. emilybronte

    Joined:
    19 Feb 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Thanks Received:
    121
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    People are not dogs.

    If rabid dogs were 'roaming the streets' I'd want them shot, but that is nothing to do with human beings with HIV.

    Joe, you really must stop reading the Daily Mail. It's rotting your brain!
     
  12. joe-90

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Thanks Received:
    960
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    So you want to let them all in and house them all their lives? I think it's your brain that's dead. :rolleyes:
     
  13. emilybronte

    Joined:
    19 Feb 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Thanks Received:
    121
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    No, my brain is functioning very well, thanks. (At least I can spell 'Britain' correctly!)

    The argument that immigrants with HIV should be treated in the UK can be defended on grounds of both utility and morality. The contrary view (ie yours) rests only on irrational, zenophobic fear and an ignorance of epidemiology and how the world works.

    As I said, pure Daily Fail
    :rolleyes:
     
  14. joe-90

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2005
    Messages:
    30,588
    Thanks Received:
    960
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    If you think spending a million quid on an illegal immigrant is good policy then good luck to you. Thankfully the rest of us think otherwise. Do you want the borders flung wide open? If not - then why not?
     
  15. emilybronte

    Joined:
    19 Feb 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Thanks Received:
    121
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You are not thinking very clearly.

    'Flinging the borders open' (widely or otherwise) is not the same thing as treating HIV sufferers from other countries.

    Claiming (as you seem to, although it isn't really clear) that HIV sufferers should be discriminated against compared with foreign visitors with any other illness/injury because it was 'their own fault' they contracted HIV, is frankly ridiculous. Perhaps if you think about it you will realise why that's sloppy thinking.

    There is an argument that the current border controls in EMDCs are unsustainable anyway long-term, but that is a different issue. There is an argument (requiring a long view, rather than a short one), that treating foreigners suffering from HIV under the NHS is the least we can do after the way Britain shafted their countries for centuries. But that is another matter.

    You seem hell-bent on twisting your own thread into something that it is not. If you just wanted to vent your dislike and suspicion of anyone who is not English/British/white, why didn't you just call it 'The Joe-90 Confused Rant number 92 : Let's Shoot all Foreigners thread'?
     

Share This Page