you aren’t pregnant: yes, you are HIV+

Two articles, both to do with NHS spending, but from very, very differing perspectives.

Thirteen areas of the NHS have so far agreed to limit access to IVF treatment, citing cost structures, limiting treatments to women between 30 and 35 years of age. One CCG reportedly suggested it could save hundreds of thousands of pounds by cutting any specialist fertility services other than in exceptional circumstances.

Couples in the selected areas, before being able to access three cycles of treatments, are now rationed to one. The research found that 65 per cent of those seeking help abroad cited the postcode lottery as their reason. Others cited long waiting lists on the NHS and a lack of egg donors.

Stated Reason….shortage of Funds.

NHS England announced that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a pill taken before sex which reduces the risk of HIV infection by around 86 per cent, will now be provided for 10,000 people in a three year trial.

The purported reason for the use of this expensive drug is that ‘PrEP’, if targeted properly at those in need and at risk, offers the possibility of transforming the English HIV epidemic. From September, people at high risk of HIV will have access via this NHS-funded trial in England to an empowering new tool that is truly individually controlled and not subject to negotiation with a partner, leading to the improvement of many, many lives.

The unpublished reason for the use of this drug, and the reason why such illuminaries as the Terrence Higgins Trust are so pleased with the funding announcement;  is that it protects homosexuals, who prefer anal sex without a condom, from HIV, as this allegedly ‘enhances the pleasure’ without the valid risk of getting this virus into their systems.

My view on homosexuals, along with the other perverts and perversions now legalised, is that of Mrs. Patrick Campbell, who stated; ‘I don’t care what they do to each other, as long as they don’t do it in the streets, and frighten the horses’. But I do object to cash being taken from viable medical treatments, from couples whose chances of having a baby together are considerably enhanced by IVF treatment; taxpayers’ cash taken from legitimately funded NHS areas of treatment, and handed to fund the dispensing of drugs whose only real purpose is allowing perverts to ‘enhance their pleasure’.

If these perverts want to continue their unsafe practices, and at the same time prevent their infection, let them buy the drugs themselves. Its what is known as taking responsibility for your own actions. I accept that HIV is now prevalent amongst other than homosexuals, but the statistic that 55% of male homosexuals have HIV is a percentage which should give pause to those who wish to continue this activity without physical protection against a fatal virus.

6 comments for “you aren’t pregnant: yes, you are HIV+

  1. Mudplugger
    August 8, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    Whilst not supporting the provision of PrEP on the NHS, I also oppose the provision of IVF treatment. Childlessness is not an illness, it’s a status, one which generations of people have always accepted as a possibility.

    Nature is quite smart and it often engineers childlessness in cases where genetic incompatibility is evident: IVF can overcome this but, in so doing, creates a known increase in birth defects, with lifelong consequences for all concerned (and all those not concerned, other than paying for it through their taxes).

    At a time when the nation’s population is already beyond its support capacity, it is strategically wrong to provide free treatment solely targeted at making that problem worse, and doubly worse when the extra ongoing costs are considered.

    The science exists and we can’t uninvent it, but we should not be subsidising it with taxes when there are far more vital health services needed.

    • Richard
      August 9, 2017 at 7:53 am

      Your argument might have merit but if the childlessness is due to some other reason than nature preventing conception due to genetic incompatibility then it doesn’t.
      As a cost to the taxpayer it is reasonable to assume that the IVF child will get a job and be shafted – sorry, taxed – well in excess of the cost of the treatment which brought him forth.
      The “overpopulation” problem might be better addressed by halting the ingress of third-world numskulls.
      There is nothing inherently immoral in reproduction but there is in wasting money to help sexual perverts avoid the consequences of dangerous practices.
      Lastly, a couple who marry ie. a man and a woman, might well be great parents which is to be encouraged.
      Luckily my wife and I were very fertile (presumably I still am) and on each occasion we wanted to conceive I hit the bullseye first time but if that hadn’t been the case we would have helped nature along with medical assistance.

  2. Poppa Bear
    August 8, 2017 at 4:56 pm

    The NHS function should be limited to treating sick people only. The fact that some people are unable to conceive is perhaps unfortunate but should not be treated an illness. If ‘treatment’ such as IVF is available then fine, but fund it yourself. Same thing with Sex, if you want to indulge in ‘unsafe practices’ fine. Either refrain or fund it yourself. Undoubtedly many would say both these
    fall into the category of ‘sickness’ But neither are life threatening or even lead to a disability so they are not symptoms of sickness.

  3. Penseivat
    August 8, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    “……it protects homosexuals, who prefer anal sex without a condom, from HIV, as this allegedly ‘enhances the pleasure’ …..”
    Anyone who handles hazardous waste without protective clothing, or corrosive liquid without protective gloves would fall foul of health and safety regulations, even if they did it to enhance the ‘pleasure of being very badly burned’. So why can’t H&S go after woofters who insist on sticking their tiny penises up someone else’s shitter without protective gear. I assume that homosexuality doesn’t affect one’s intelligence, so why can’t they show how intelligent they are? As far as I’m concerned, any homosexual who has unprotected anal sex and ends up with aids is suffering a “self inflicted ailment” as my Army doctors used to say and should just have to suffer the consequences.
    Unfortunately, this is yet another of the Frankfurt School tenets which turns common sense on it’s arse in the name of a political ideal and is slavishly followed by the current band of snowflakes and SJWs, many of whom, unfortunately, are in positions of influence.

    • Mudplugger
      August 8, 2017 at 8:26 pm

      It is ironic that, at the same time as pressing every available and highly-expensive treatment onto HIV patients, especially those who choose to disregard all health advice in terms of their pleasure practices, the same NHS seeks to deny treatment to smokers who contribute enormously to the cost of running the NHS, arguing that they have chosen to disregard health advice.

      A piece of research just released confirms that tobacco-users contribute around £15bn per annum in Excise Duties and the savings on pensions/benefits through premature death, yet they only cost £5bn in healthcare, cleansing fag-ends and any fire-risk. That’s a £10bn ‘profit’ – yet the unprotected bum-bandits contribute nothing to the ‘pot’ but get everything provided without question.

      Some may say that’s not entirely fair – but the socialism never is.

      • August 10, 2017 at 3:57 am

        Hear hear (#cough#, *cough*)

Comments are closed.