Should women have to pay for new anti-cervical cancer drugs?

I was reading about this yesterday: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Boots_to_offer_cervical_cancer_jabs&in_article_id=736335&in_page_id=34

In short (and yes is my own biased synopsis) this vaccine could reduce the risk of women getting the virus that causes cervical cancer massively but is only being rolled out to teenagers. Those beyond that age can still have it - for £405 from Boots.

I have tried very hard to cling to my liberal views as I get older but generally I resent that because I am one of the people who actually pays NI I also have to pay for prescriptions but in this case I would rather pay £7.20 (or even £21.60 to cover each jab) that £405.

The counter argument seems to be that you may be wasting the drugs if the person already has the virus (which is stark contract to the swine flu over reaction where all you had to do to get Tami flu was to ring up with a sniffle) and that its not 100% effective but it might deter women for going from their smears (a tad patronising).

What are your thoughts?

There is little, if any, sense in a woman having this jab once she's been sexually active, so I don't see any great good coming from the NHS offering it to adults. It looks to me as though Boots are just trying to make money out of people's lack of knowledge; no doubt some women will pay £400 for a jab that won't do them the slightest bit of good.

There is little, if any, sense in a woman having this jab once she's been sexually active,

That's presuming that every woman over 18 is sexually active and that everyone woman who has been sexually active has had the virus

As a general rule of thumb, based on the school children I spend time with, I'd say near enough every woman over the age of fourteen is sexually active, let alone eighteen.

The title of your thread suggests that you want to discuss drugs for treating cervical cancer, not vaccines which are shown to prevent cervical cancer but only when exposed to the vaccine before first being exposed to the virus.

If I was on the funding committee for this vaccine I wouldn't have approved free usage beyond the age groups where it has been shown to be helpful either. In future there may be clinical trials and metaanalysis papers which show efficacy for those of a higher age group, but if the data currently only supports vaccinating before exposure then there's no way I'd be paying for others to receive it too.

Once you're sexually active there's no way of knowing whether you've been exposed to the virus and that includes in those using condoms and safer sex protection. HPV can be spread just from external genital contact, which doesn't even necessitate penetrative sex happening to spread the virus from one person to another.

Nobody (male or female) can be completely sure that they haven't already been exposed to HPV once they're sexually active so the only group other than the previously stated early teens who could benefit from the vaccine under the current available data is women who have not yet had any intimate sexual experiences, which is only a very small proportion of the population.

For everyone else, how would you feel if everyone was given £400 just because they asked for it, rather than because they needed it? That's as good a use of the money as giving older women the vaccination without any data to show that it's going to be helpful.

It would be sexist for them not to pay because they would get something free that men cannot, thus men would pay disproportionally AGAIN!

It would be sexist for them not to pay because they would get something free that men cannot, thus men would pay disproportionally AGAIN!

And I'm sure you'd say the same for treatment for prostate cancer and maternity services too.

If you can't add anything positive to the discussion, how about stopping posting idiotic comments like the above?

Sorry, I've been away....

The title of your thread suggests that you want to discuss drugs for treating cervical cancer, not vaccines which are shown to prevent cervical cancer but only when exposed to the vaccine before first being exposed to the virus.

 

If I was on the funding committee for this vaccine I wouldn't have approved free usage beyond the age groups where it has been shown to be helpful either. In future there may be clinical trials and metaanalysis papers which show efficacy for those of a higher age group, but if the data currently only supports vaccinating before exposure then there's no way I'd be paying for others to receive it too.

 

Once you're sexually active there's no way of knowing whether you've been exposed to the virus and that includes in those using condoms and safer sex protection. HPV can be spread just from external genital contact, which doesn't even necessitate penetrative sex happening to spread the virus from one person to another.

 

Nobody (male or female) can be completely sure that they haven't already been exposed to HPV once they're sexually active so the only group other than the previously stated early teens who could benefit from the vaccine under the current available data is women who have not yet had any intimate sexual experiences, which is only a very small proportion of the population.

If there's no way of know whether someone has or hasn't been exposed to the virus then how can they say conclusively (or conclusively enough to no prescribe the drug) that it won't be effective in older people.

Are there figures out there to show the spread or estimated spread of the virus amongst sexual active women? (I genuinely don't know the answer to this and if you can tell me that a massive proportion of women have been exposed then i might be persuaded)

For everyone else, how would you feel if everyone was given £400 just because they asked for it, rather than because they needed it? That's as good a use of the money as giving older women the vaccination without any data to show that it's going to be helpful.

I doubt the cost to Boots (or the NHS) would be £400pp or there'd be no profit margin and besides the Government waste my taxes on lots of things I don't think the country needs.