Warning: Attempt to read property "post_excerpt" on null in /homepages/1/d778327051/htdocs/clickandbuilds/MyOwnOpinionsGlobalNews/wp-content/themes/mh-magazine/includes/mh-custom-functions.php on line 364
There are millions of people treated by the National Health Services (NHS) in the UK every year, and some patients receive treatment for ailments that are preventative.
The UK is unique in the health care that is offered to patients in that we do not have to unless we choose to purchase private health insurance. Everyone regardless of colour, creed, religious beliefs or sexual orientation gets treatment on the NHS. It would be foolhardy to believe that the NHS is not stretch to the limit.
In my opinion, a drug is manufactured that can prevent an illness I cannot understand why it would not be welcome, and why it has to go to the High Court for judges to make a decision about a something that can save a human being life.
I understand that most people believe that HIV is a homosexuality disease, in my opinion, they would be wrong. However, if there is a drug that can prevent the risk of HIV, what is the problem in making it available to the at-risk group.
There is a report in the media that suggest that a drug is available that when taken reduce the risk of HIV by 90%, but the NHS England does not want to fund this drug, and now it is in the hands of the High Court.
Reports suggest that around 7,000 people per year or diagnose with HIV, and each patient can receive up to £20,000 antiretroviral drugs each year. The point is if that is the case why would any authority not want to fund preventative drugs, which would be a pill per day costing £400 per month. I am at a loss to understand the thinking behind the decision by NHS England.
From a lay person, a point of view would not these drugs be useful in the long-term in reducing the level of patients that the NHS have to treat.