I Agree with you Amy I was having the very same discussion about other Stds just today, I cant help think giving this drug is going to be a bad idea/

I think for members of high risk communities this drug is a wonderful step forward. Perhaps some people would try and use it to replace condoms, but I find it hard to believe doctors would dish it out without stern words of warning about the dangers of being over reliant on it, and as with most things it's up to the individual to take steps to protect themselves.
For most people who use this drug (and have reason to) it could be completely life changing, and if it's one step closer to understanding and managing  this disease in our community then I'm all for it.

But surely if people took steps to protect themselves, they wouldn't need it ? The High Risk is from not taking precautions, , i.e condoms and needle sharing.  A heroin addict who uses a clean needle is not at risk of HIV. A person who uses a condom is not at risk (unless they are unlucky and they have a broken condom) needles and condoms are readily available through needle exchange and condoms at clinics. The tools to protect are already there. So what further protection does this drug offer ?

But surely if people took steps to protect themselves, they wouldn't need it ? The High Risk is from not taking precautions, , i.e condoms and needle sharing.  A heroin addict who uses a clean needle is not at risk of HIV. A person who uses a condom is not at risk (unless they are unlucky and they have a broken condom) needles and condoms are readily available through needle exchange and condoms at clinics. The tools to protect are already there. So what further protection does this drug offer ?

A higher risk can also arise from a role at work; those who work with HIV positive people (maybe in a healthcare profession and administering medications/doing blood tests) or in the emergency services somewhere with a very high HIV rate although that's unlikely to be anywhere in the UK? Hep B vaccines are already standard for nurses, paramedics, police officers and so on.

Plus back over here in the sex industry, people who perform in porn may choose not to use condoms when they're working and the medication gives them an extra layer of protection on top of the regular screening? If they're happy to pay for it, I don't see the problem and if it turns out to be effective it could even be a step towards a vaccine (I obviously have no medical knowledge to back that up ).

I agree with you about healthcare professionals, I did think about that myself, however I just think the funding would have been spent better elsewhere for unavoidable disease/conditions. As for people taking precaustions and the disease still spreading, its the sharing of needles and unprotected sex, as for the porn industry, if they are paying for the treatment then so be it, I guess what I am trying to say is, given the choice of a cancer patient receiving life saving treatment, in comparison to someone who wilfully exposes themself to HIV by not using condoms/clean needles, my choice would go towards the cancer patient. Their are children in this Country who are dying from rare cancers because the NHS wont fund the treatment as its deemed too expensive, yet they are funding expensive treatment to people who already have tools to protect themselves. I understand and respect we will all have different opinions on this and from what I can see there has been a lot of debate within the NHS over this.

I think the thing is that its far cheaper than treating someone with HIV for the rest of their lives and if it were to stop the spread of HIV in the places where its most prevalent then surely that's a good thing? It could potentially put it into terminal decline which surely would be a good thing for everyone. I think they said that HIV transmission rates in London amongst gay men have shown a marked decrease over the last few years and its thought to be down to the availability of Prep drugs being used.