Clare wrote:
They also appeared to be suggesting that a person who does have a religion was not capable of contributing a "balanced" view. I don't speak on behalf of any church and never have. I speak for me and at the times I have felt people were using particular issues just to "have a go" at religion I have said so. I think that is honest. I have disagreed with you often and agreed with you too and I respect your contributions. I have never called them "laughably stupid" and openly ridiculed you. I don't think that sort of thing is necessary on a site like this.

Clare also wrote:
Lev, I'm suspicious of the motives of a government that wants to give twelve year old girls an injection which ensures they can start having sex with whoever they like there and then and hopefully dodge the risk of cervical cancer!!!!!!!!!!! Sod the law that says having sex with a twelve year old is illegal eh? And makes you a paedophile eh? To hell with law etc......

Now come on! Are you really suggesting that the goverment wants to give young girls HPV vaccine to facilitate their participation in under age sex?
And what does the truly odd"And makes you a paedophile eh?" mean? I'm flummoxed by that one.
The law against under age sex is quite explicit and as far as I can see quite rigorously enforced.
So if the word stupid doesn't fit I'll substitute it with unbalanced which is a sort of synonym for deranged. If your contribution was neither of these things perhaps you would like to explain why not and then I might withdraw what I said. No offence meant of course.

Levenax wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:
....yes I do object to this in particular because Aids, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases are caused by a selfish and self-centred way of life.


You're reasoning is a bit agley there Lydia. What about morbidly obese people, folk with alcoholic liver disease or others with the hundred and one horrible things that smokers suffer from? All three groups have entirely unnecessary self inflicted injuries from eating, drinking or smoking. Are they any less culpable than the sodomite who contracts AIDS or syphilis or gonorrhoea of the tonsils?
I do however agree that the amount of money spent on AIDS research is disproportionate when one considers the very small numbers of sufferers in the developed world. The catastrophic AIDS epidemic that's killing millions in the third world will not be ameliorated in any way by better treatments or vaccines. We have to teach them about the folly of promiscuity and be deaf to the maunderings of the so called liberal left who peddle the lie that it's a cultural thing to copulate with anything that has a pulse.#



I do object to the as you put it disproportionate amount of money spent on Aids.

Yes as you say there are many other diseases, which may very well have an element of selfish living involved in the contracting of the disease but they struggle to get funding, not one of these diseases gets millions thrown at it.

If some degree of fairness instead of current trend was involved in the decision making of research finance I would be happier.

I do feel that health problems connected to sexually contracted problems such as Abortion Aids and sexually transmitted diseases take up a huge amount of the NHS budget.

It is the fact that so much has been known for so long that gets to me. The health message about STDs Aids and pregnancy are all taught at School, are all spoken about so often in daily life and yet so many still take the chance with unprotected sex. This is not on a par with a diet or stopping smoking this is simple use of a condom.

Had you read my previous post I included myself in the selfish people because I am a heavy smoker, and yes, I am saying that we have a cheek expecting treatment, which takes away from the innocent victims. As I stated in my other post many years ago when I started smoking it may have been fair to say that little was known. We cannot say that now, I know all the dangers, I preach them all too any youngster within earshot, but still I smoke.

Even allowing for the people like me who are selfish and take up NHS resources, the amount we use or are allowed to use is a very small amount compared to Aids, Transplant and the latest crazes, which include the use of Embryos and creating Hybrid Embryos.

Absolutely unfair and uneven.

If the decisions were made on, a financially fair basis or common sense basis we would look at which diseases cost the country most start on them find the cure and work our way down.

LYDIA REID wrote:
....Even allowing for the people like me who are selfish and take up NHS resources, the amount we use or are allowed to use is a very small amount compared to Aids, Transplant and the latest crazes, which include the use of Embryos and creating Hybrid Embryos.

Absolutely unfair and uneven.

If the decisions were made on, a financially fair basis or common sense basis we would look at which diseases cost the country most start on them find the cure and work our way down.

Smoking is the worst thing any person can do to ruin their own health and that of those around them. It costs the NHS £Bs to treat the multitude of diseases it causes and the government spends more £Bs on sickness benefit and the costs of tens of thousands of folk dying in middle age.
I enjoy your company on this board and I genuinely hope you'll consider giving up what is a truly gruesome habit. I have friends who say that the Paul McKenna book on stopping smoking was a big help especially when combined with nicotine patches.
Alcohol is also a major public health problem. It kills thousands every year from cirrhosis which is a particularly nasty way to die and causes untold misery because of violence and family break up.
The combined morbidity of tobacco and alcohol dwarfs that of AIDS and STDs so you are wrong to assert that the amount of resources taken up by the first two is very small - it's not.

InfrequentAllele wrote:
Lydia - I've shot myself in the foot by pointing out that doctors can't discriminate? I don't see how you manage to arrive at that conclusion unless you believe that people with HIV get preferential treatment on the NHS, but that's simply untrue. Perhaps you confuse the public visibility of HIV / AIDS with favouritism. I've already explained at great length why it is that there are such public awareness campaigns for HIV but not for MS. I've already explained how funding for health research works.

If a new and expensive drug for HIV patients were to come onto the market tomorrow, HIV patients would experience the exact same problems getting it as MS patients currently experience getting Beta-Interferon. When the anti-HIV drug Retrovir and other advanced antivirals were first put on the market some years back, the NHS refused to pay for them. The NHS used the same arguments they're currently using to avoid paying for Beta-Interferon for MS. Every time any new and expensive drug first becomes available we see these arguments about funding and access. Just last year it was a new drug for breast cancer patients which made the news.

There is an article about this very subject in today's Independent about the NHS refusing to fund new drugs for kidney cancer. It explains the process of drug approval quite well.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-...end-life-888232.html

"Moreover, yes I do object to this in particular because Aids, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases are caused by a selfish and self-centred way of life."

What you're saying is that when funding is limited we should make decisions about health spending based upon the morality of patients. Your moral standards aren't mine, and neither of us have the same moral standards as the guy along the road. So who gets to decide what's moral in medical care?

I find it strange that you are proposing to stop funding the treatment of illnesses which can be fatal, but not proposing that the NHS should reduce funding for something like psoriasis. Psoriasis can be painful, distressing and unslightly, but it's not going to kill anyone. (And before I'm accused of disrespecting the suffering of psoriasis patients, I have psoriasis myself.) If you want to have a discussion about NHS funding priorities, why aren't you talking about reducing spending on non-fatal conditions?

HIV infection is strongly associated with unprotected sex. Throat cancer is strongly associated with alcohol intake and smoking. Bowel cancer is strongly associated with an unhealthy diet. Breast cancer is strongly associated with failure to check regularly for lumps. We are all responsible for our own well-being, and we all make bad choices sometimes. But you seem to be proposing to make sure that people's mistakes will kill them.

Did I ever at any time suggest that people are not treated, it is research and the cost of the treatment that is under discussion but if doctors are supposed to treat all why then are they spending so much on Aids and so little on all the other deserving diseases. Why are they spending so much on transplant and not on MS, why are they spending millions on the use of Embryos when it is proven that stem cell research is producing results? And yes read my reply to Lev above I do think the amount spent on sexually gained diseases takes up a great deal of NHS money. As I replied in a previous post I believe that we live, a selfish life and I have included myself in that group. Considering the job I do I know as much if not more than you do about the funding for the NHS and how it relates to every day life I do not get all my information from the internet.

I can quote case histories where a young mum lost her twins because she drove from Helensbugh to Glasgow in an ambulance, the NHS closed the unit in her area. A young mum who tried for ten years to get pregnant and lost her baby on the way to a neonatal cot in Glasgow. People with bowel cancer and many other types of cancer wait for an appointment with a consultant, wait for a scan, cannot get the drugs which could save their lives, they die waiting, many are non smokers , non drinkers and have a good diet. Need I go on?

The people with sexually transmitted diseases and the women who want an abortion have facilities on their doorstep they do not wait for appointments they have every drug available. It may be that I missed it but I cannot remember any discussion over Aids patient waiting for any drug.
I do remember they big hoo ha when the Aids drugs were discovered.

Levenax wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:
....Even allowing for the people like me who are selfish and take up NHS resources, the amount we use or are allowed to use is a very small amount compared to Aids, Transplant and the latest crazes, which include the use of Embryos and creating Hybrid Embryos.

Absolutely unfair and uneven.

If the decisions were made on, a financially fair basis or common sense basis we would look at which diseases cost the country most start on them find the cure and work our way down.

Smoking is the worst thing any person can do to ruin their own health and that of those around them. It costs the NHS £Bs to treat the multitude of diseases it causes and the government spends more £Bs on sickness benefit and the costs of tens of thousands of folk dying in middle age.
I enjoy your company on this board and I genuinely hope you'll consider giving up what is a truly gruesome habit. I have friends who say that the Paul McKenna book on stopping smoking was a big help especially when combined with nicotine patches.
Alcohol is also a major public health problem. It kills thousands every year from cirrhosis which is a particularly nasty way to die and causes untold misery because of violence and family break up.
The combined morbidity of tobacco and alcohol dwarfs that of AIDS and STDs so you are wrong to assert that the amount of resources taken up by the first two is very small - it's not.

Smokers give 85% of every pack of cigarettes purchased to the Treasury! We pay our way in addition to our taxes and if we all stop tonight Lev you are looking at 5% AT LEAST on the basic rate to recoup the loss to the Treasury!

Levenax wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:
....Even allowing for the people like me who are selfish and take up NHS resources, the amount we use or are allowed to use is a very small amount compared to Aids, Transplant and the latest crazes, which include the use of Embryos and creating Hybrid Embryos.

Absolutely unfair and uneven.

If the decisions were made on, a financially fair basis or common sense basis we would look at which diseases cost the country most start on them find the cure and work our way down.

Smoking is the worst thing any person can do to ruin their own health and that of those around them. It costs the NHS £Bs to treat the multitude of diseases it causes and the government spends more £Bs on sickness benefit and the costs of tens of thousands of folk dying in middle age.
I enjoy your company on this board and I genuinely hope you'll consider giving up what is a truly gruesome habit. I have friends who say that the Paul McKenna book on stopping smoking was a big help especially when combined with nicotine patches.
Alcohol is also a major public health problem. It kills thousands every year from cirrhosis which is a particularly nasty way to die and causes untold misery because of violence and family break up.
The combined morbidity of tobacco and alcohol dwarfs that of AIDS and STDs so you are wrong to assert that the amount of resources taken up by the first two is very small - it's not.

Well thank you Lev I enjoy your company too.

I never smoke in front of anyone who is not a smoker adults or children, not that they would let me anyway, I have done my job too well on the kids.

I am the social outcast who goes outside or into the bathroom with the extract fan on if the weather is too bad or it is late at night.

My twelve year old grandson gives me a very hard time over smoking. He says things like "what will I do if you die". Normally I would move mountains to take away that worry from him but with smoking I don't. The real problem is I have no want to stop. I think you need to want too stop. I cannot argue with you about the harm smoking does.

That is not to say I am not going to argue with you about something. I got the figures from one of the SNP MSPs about two years ago, I know I have them and I know the cost of smoking and drinking is far outstripped by the cost of STDs Aids and abortion. They will be on an old disk somewhere I have a mission to find them now.

Lydia - "Did I ever at any time suggest that people are not treated" - I got the impression you did, but I am very glad to be corrected and that you agree all patients should be treated according to their clinical needs.

The issue of embryos vs stem cells isn't primarily one of research costs so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I've already pointed out most research funding comes from the private sector.

You can't look at a set of budget figures in isolation. Stopping medical intervention in one area has the effect of increasing costs in other areas. Banning abortions won't generate cost savings which could be spent on MS, because it would bring about an increase in costs in areas like prenatal and antenatal care, and surgical care for women who have had botched back-street abortions. Banning abortions increases costs in other areas of public spending too. So the total costs to the public purse would be greater and there would be even less money available to spend on expensive new drugs for people with MS.

Similar issues apply to not treating or preventing STDs.

It's fine to hold the moral opinions that you do, but financial or cost saving arguments don't back up your case, quite the reverse in fact.

Even so, you still need to answer the fundamental questions - Who gets to decide on how the personal morality of patients applies to medical care? What moral standard are we applying? We don't all take the same moral view of abortion or embryo research or sexual behaviour.

I don't get all my information from the Internet either. I admit that my experience with the NHS is out of date, and it was in England where regulations differ from Scotland, but I did work in the NHS. My job was to act as an independent advocate for patients who had complaints about their medical treatment. I had to prepare patients' cases and present them to panels of doctors and medical investigation committees. Many of these cases centred on funding issues.

After leaving that job I worked in the voluntary sector and represented community organisations on NHS health trust committees. I spent a lot of time arguing against spending cuts to mental health services.