Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
"But the government wanted further evidence on the cost benefits of a programme before making a final decision"
Does this mean they weighed up the cost of vaccinating people against the cost of treating those who might contract cervical cancer? Because that seems ever so slightly despicable
hence women who get breast cancer aren't able to easily get access to really expensive new drugs because the NHS figure that it will be more expensive to supply them than to actually let people die.
IF the money was used more effectively elsewhere
to say it isn't in the health budget?
And I can't be bothered to debate the pros and cons of health service budgeting, as well as what concerns could be considered unworthy of their budgets because it will go nowhere
that your post defeated a counter-argument by implying that money isn't spent effectively, though...
Its just I don't have comprehsenive knowledge of the funding budgeted to the NHS or how that budget itself is distributed among the different areas of healthcare. I don't imagine anyone else here does either, which means any argument about it would be based on guesses. Perhaps educated guesses, but still guesses.
My initial disgust was morally rather than politically based; I do understand resources are an issue. I just (perhaps unrealistically) place the value of human life above the value of all else.
so do i, which is why resources do need to be targetted effectively.
But without the comprehsenive knowledge I mentioned above, it would be nigh-on impossible to conclude how effective current targeting is, or how it could be improved.
i just thought we were debating the principle. not to worry...
whenever women can't get an expensive drug of unproven effectiveness on the NHS it becomes highly politicised and the DoH & NICE usually cave in in the end. Because the general public are sympathetic to ordinary run of the mill women.
But when it comes to spending money extending the lives of working class men who've had long-term exposure to asbestos and who end up dying of mesothelioma, the country couldn't give two fucks.
it's actually the cost involved in prolonging a person's life by x amount of years. i've worked on these analyses for NICE, and they are totally rigorous and independent in the work they do. actually they do the very hard job of making the DoH accept rigorous scientific evidence even when it's not in the government's interest. which is why it pisses me off when the press run these stories making out that drug funding is a political decision.
nice! well, some of them anyway
I had no idea. I thought there was a great big resource tree in Parliament Square.
Of course I'm well aware of the limited resources avialble (often limited because because of unnecessary budgetary concerns so its not really that great a counter argument).
But you'd have to be morally retarded to not understand how it would seem reprehsenible to some people
much of the costs are just lining the pockets of drug and medical companies
Or didn't have the funding? You were the first to point out the problem of limited resources
Why did you think I was?
And I don't expect them to give away medicines. I can have ethical problems with the 'risk assessment' that goes on with healthcare and still recognise what is practical.
sorry daniel :s
I'm still curious why you thought that though...
source of funding for drugs companies is the ultimate user of the drugs?
heaven forbid that the govt. might, for once, give some thought before spunking away other people's money
or they could be spent on developing and building weaponry that cuts medical bills in other countries by reducing the population in those countries.
You are talking about immunising half the children in the UK compared to however many girls are shown to get cervical cancer overall in the UK, and compared to the number of those that would have been present here to receive such a vaccination at all...
Seems reasonable to me. Parents could presumably pay to have it done themselves if they wished.
and the pragmatist in me agrees entirely.
But on a gut level I find something about "risk assessing" with the lives of young women just...wrong.
So, a person's health should be governed by the income of their parents?
money should we spend on the health service, traynor?
if you adopt your guiding principle: 'if it saves just ONE life, it's worth it' then you're setting a dangerous and expensive precedent.
You put words in my mouth, deliberatly assuming, slanderously, to depict my argument as simplistic and not well thought out, because I didn't write a page of (simple) socialist explanation.
nobody thinks that a child's health should be determined by parental wealth. you put those words into theo's mouth slanderously trying to depict his argument as simplistic and not thought out.
I was simply pointing out that the government's choice didn't mean the treatment was unavailable.
I'm glad they've decided to spend the money.
Presumably this is mainly about preventing an adult from suffering from the cancer later in life, isn't it?
cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted infection?!!
for fuck sakes. I swear I wasn't told this.
I think this is a brilliant thing. Good on the govt for doing this.
based on the idea that girls would be more likely to be promiscuous knowing that it might give them cancer.
who believe in creationism, hell and celebacy.
although i do believe they are real people, just wrongheaded ones
yeah, i've heard that argument too and it's just a joke..
I heard they also wanted to put razor blades in condoms to discourage safe sex too.
the latest fad with the kidz?
reactionary fluff. There are reasonable arguments against mandatory HPV vaccination; increased risk of promiscuity isn't one of them. It is, however, a highly successful headline grabber: one of the key victories in the PR campaign over this has been getting it rebranded a 'cancer jab' rather than a 'sex jab' by the meedjah.
risk assessment (I can't find a suitable spot to reply up there); I've found that the individuals involved in sorting this stuff out in the NHS have been a pretty reasonable and sensible lot.
There was debate a year or two ago on a related issue: the age at which women start cervical screening has recently been bumped up because it was hardly catching any women in those years. This was widely seen as a good move: save a lot of money, and save women a couple more years of screening-anxiety. With that said, I attended a talk last year in which a researcher presented 3 cases studies of women who died protracted, and probably painful deaths because of cervical cancer that younger screening could have caught. Only 3 cases were presented because these were the only 3 they could find in the UK. Some of the people who made the original calculations and that policy change saw the talk, and had to deal with this information. After it all, however, even the person who did the research maintained that these cases need to be remembered, the money was better spent elsewhere. CC is still relatively rare, and there's a feeling of trust that the money saved would be put to better use saving more lives in a different context.