On Wed 16 Sep, Katie Law wrote:
> Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > 2. Is there a dangerous precedent here when the government tells
> > clinicians what or what not to prescribe?
>
> Absolutely.
> For that reason alone we should be making a loud noise.
>
> > 4. Is there not laughable duplicity here where the rich can get it
> > but not the poor, irrespective of clinical need?
>
> Not just laughable, wrong!
Erm. Viagra is now a licensed product and you can prescribe it. Mr
Dobson has simply taken the decision that it should not be available
on the NHS (yet). My partner issued two private prescriptions for the
stuff this morning. Neither of them for me I hasten to add.
Mr Dobson has indicated that he would like to see the drug available
on the NHS for the "deserving impotent". What he does not want to see
is the Government funding of Viagra's use as a recreational drug by,
in Dobbo-speak, "men waving their potency in the discos".
It is in drawing up the rules, about whom it should and should not be
available for, that the difficulties arise. If you have the *perfect*
solution to this dilemma please email me and I'll forward your
suggestion to his private office.
My *personal* view is that Viagra should be available as a "hospital
only" NHS prescription, though GPs may issue private prescriptions if
they feel they have sufficient expertise. Erectile dysfunction should
be considered alongside all other spending priorities in the HiMP,
effectively ring-fencing the spend. This will lead to rationing by
waiting list (which the NHS seems to do rather too well) but will
allow for flexibility in future years as the priorities within the
HiMP change. (Under the new arrangements the public will have some
input into this prioritisation process)
Dons asbestos suit (susceptible to positive and constructive flames
only) . . . .
Trims.
--
Dr Ian Trimble http://www.sherwood.demon.co.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|