Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
click here sounds like a good idea to me, but on the radio there was a naive buffoon arguing for abstinence as a preferred option... not on the same planet as todays generation I thought?
i to think it,s a good idea,youg girls need protection from there selfs and if it saves just one life i,m all for it.
I'm looking on the downside, the media is promoting this jab as a 'cancer cure' it is not.
It is a preventative for a virus infection that is one of the causes of cancer of the cervix. It may give some women the impression that screening is no longer required and that this cancer will disappear. It may also make some girls forget about all the other diseases that can be transmitted by a multi-partner approach to sex.
Just heard on the News that this jab will cost the NHS £250 a go. Not a lot to save a life but do these things really cost that much or is it a case of the Drug companies cashing in.
Extract from the Article linked to above
"Following the announcement from the JCVI, health minister Caroline Flint said she was "delighted to announce that we intend, in principle, to introduce an HPV vaccine into the national immunisation programme".
But there were conditions, a Department of Health statement added. The programme would have to undergo an "independent peer review of the cost-benefit analysis", and funding for it would be "considered in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review".
It costs money so is unlikely to happen
I see however that the Scottish Parliament is moving quickly
are not denied treatment (yet).
and should never be.
It's a complete no-brainer to vaccinate girls before they're sexually active. Cervical cancer is a killer, so this not only saves lives, it also saves money as the NHS won't have to treat them for cancer later in their lives. It's nothing to do with abstinence or otherwise and to bluster about prevention being better than the cure is pointless. 99 per cent of women will be sexually active at some point, not necessarily as irresponsible teens but later in their lives as adults in long, monogamous relationships. It's not about morals, which frankly are nobody's business anyway.
Screening will still be required but it should in the long term bring down the incidence of cervical cancer quite sharply. I don't want to see any woman go through my mother's experience of cervical cancer at 30.
I am not partisan about smokers, we all have to take some responsibility for our own health. That said click here
What irks is the judgemental approach of politicians that some people are less deserving of care than others. And the lack of overall vision, i.e.the NHS is only concerned with its own budget. That lack of treatment might cost social services hundreds of thousands of pounds in care costs is not part of the equation - but we all end up paying those.
E.g. the elderly who are denied treatment fot wet age related macular degeneration until they are totally blind in one eye and the remaining eye is affected. At that point the likelihood is that the loss of sight will be be complete. Treatment for all new cases would cost less than the proposed 'jab'. and reduce ongoing care costs. But it is only the elderly!
Kate B - Quote from the BBC report above
"The vaccine is most effective when it is administered to girls before they become sexually active and come into contact with the virus."
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.