Cervical cancer vaccine program scrapped

serfboard

tallaght01 wrote: »

If we spent the money on the vaccines, what exactly would we NOT spend it on.

We would NOT spend it on bailing out builders through the outrageous "home choice" scam being proposed.

tallaght01

serfboard wrote: »

We would NOT spend it on bailing out builders through the outrageous "home choice" scam being proposed.

Does that come out of the health budget?

walshb

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't think foreign aid should be cut. We will still have the poor man's vaccination programme (ie the screenig programme), and the proper vaccination programme will be implemented eventually.

Aid to the 3rd world is about last chances. To my mind anyway, the 6 month old dying of gastroenteritis for want of some oral rehydration solution in Somalia is just as deserving of our money as the 12 year old irish girl, who probably still has a few years before she's really at risk of HPV infection.

I never said cut foreign aid aid.
I just find it extremely puzzling that this amount of money, and it is a huge amount no matter what way you look at it, is available for 'poor' countries, yet young girls in Ireland are now having to do without potential life saving treatment. My god, girls all over Asia are benefitting from this type of treatment and we are probably paying for a lot of it, but cannot provide for our own?:rolleyes:

Some of the countries our aid go to are very powerful and wealthy indeed, South Africa is one of them

Ireland now cannot 'afford' to provide this treatment and they also could not afford to allow
70 year olds the med card. I ask, who is the poor country in all of this?

walshb

taconnol wrote: »

In fairness, our foreign aid is extremely, extremely important. So I can't agree with you there.

For whom exactly? Its not important for me!

Sort your own house first before trying to sort others!

Macha

walshb wrote: »

I never said cut foreign aid aid.
I just find it extremely puzzling that this amount of money, and it is a huge amount no matter what way you look at it, is available for 'por' countries, yet young girls in Ireland are now having to do without potential life saving treatment. My god, girls all over Asia are benefitting from this type of treatment and we are probably paying for a lot of it, but cannot provide for our own?:rolleyes:

Some of the countries our aid go to are very powerful and wealthy indeed, South Africa is one of them

Can I ask why you put the word poor in inverted commas?

These are the countries that our aid goes to and ALL of them are deserving, including South Africa:
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/countries.asp

For hundreds of years, the West has piggybacked off other countries to achieve wealth. Even now, we use up more than our fair share of resources. It's time to give something back instead of just taking all the time.

A portion of the money should come out of the consultants' ridiculous wages.

tallaght01

taconnol wrote: »

Can I ask why you put the word poor in inverted commas?

I was just wondering that!!!

taconnol wrote: »

These are the countries that our aid goes to and ALL of them are deserving, including South Africa:
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/countries.asp

For hundreds of years, the West has piggybacked off other countries to achieve wealth. Even now, we use up more than our fair share of resources. It's time to give something back instead of just taking all the time.

A portion of the money should come out of the consultants' ridiculous wages.

I'll be happy to take an imposed paycut as a consultant if:

I'm not responsible for my patients 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

We no longer have to work shifts of up to 72 hours duration with no sleep for up to 13 years to get there.

We're not making life or death decisions about babies at 4am on saturday nights until we're 65 years of age.

No-one gives me any grief when I opt to go and work in the private sector instead.


But agree about the importance of giving back to poor contries.

Comparing the health of girls in poor Asian countries is just flawed on so many levels. WalshB.....I presume that was a mistake on your part. I mean, we can discuss the health differences between the 2 groups f you want, but i assume you know where that would get us.

walshb

taconnol wrote: »

Can I ask why you put the word poor in inverted commas?

These are the countries that our aid goes to and ALL of them are deserving, including South Africa:
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/countries.asp

For hundreds of years, the West has piggybacked off other countries to achieve wealth. Even now, we use up more than our fair share of resources. It's time to give something back instead of just taking all the time.

A portion of the money should come out of the consultants' ridiculous wages.

South Africa? Are you serious?

You must work in this field.

Do a little research on SA and you will see how powerful and diverse and
dynamic a country it is. Yes, it has poverty, juts like we have judging by what's going on.

When oh when could we ever host a World Cup. How many diamond and GOLD
mines do we have?

Did we ever win the Rugby WC?

How many Olympic gold medals has Ireland won?

What's our GDP compared to theirs, our Population and land size to theirs?

How many tanks and guns and bombs do we have to compare to theirs.

The list is endless and just because some of their folk happen to live in 'shanty'
towns doesn't mean they are in dire straits. Shanty towns that by the way, are
immaculately kept and who the people are very proud of.
I
Its like the elephant in the room, we can't open our mouths to question
aid to foreign countries; but we accept problems in our own country and we cut and rob
from the elderly and vulnerable

Example: Ireland needed to claim back 100 million from our old age pensioners,
so they decided to take their med cards. Why not use 100 million from the 900
million we are sending abroad? It still would see 800 million going abroad. A vast amount. No, no, if we did that, there would be outrage from Bono&Geldof&Robinson and GOAL and Trocaire and Concern etc. It's ludicrous, and like I said, the sums just do not add up!

Macha

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'll be happy to take an imposed paycut as a consultant if:

I'm not responsible for my patients 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

We no longer have to work shifts of up to 72 hours duration with no sleep for up to 13 years to get there.

We're not making life or death decisions about babies at 4am on saturday nights until we're 65 years of age.

No-one gives me any grief when I opt to go and work in the private sector instead.

I am all for salaries increasing with responsibility but the amount that consultants are paid is ridiculous. There are many professions that can claim to be extremely important but they don't get the huge salaries. Also, consultants here are allowed to use public facilities for free, whereas in the UK they rightly have to pay for them.

walshb, whether I work in the sector or not is entirely irrelevant. I'm glad you pointed out how diverse SA is. There are a lot of extremely poor people there. What exactly poverty gap between the West and the "poor" countries are you waiting for before you decide that they need some help? You should read on up things like ecological debt and colonialism as well. Arguing just about SA is nonsensical, are you going to say the same thing about the rest of the countries, or just base it on 1 country?

walshb

tallaght01 wrote: »

I was just wondering that!!!




Comparing the health of girls in poor Asian countries is just flawed on so many levels. WalshB.....I presume that was a mistake on your part. I mean, we can discuss the health differences between the 2 groups f you want, but i assume you know where that would get us.

Where did I compare?

All I said was that young girls all over Asia are receiving this treatment. We are NOT.

What country is poor in this sense?

If they can provide it and they are 'poor', why can't Ireland? It's a simple question!

Macha

walshb wrote: »

Whee did compare?

All I said was that young girls all over Asia are receiving this treatment. We are NOT.

What country is poor in this sense?

If they can provide it and they are 'poor', why can't Ireland? It's a simple question!

walshb, you're flailing all over the place. Can you give a case of a "poor" asian country that is giving out this treatment to young girls, seeing as it's happening "all over Asia".

Zaph

OK folks, poverty in other countries and foreign aid are important topics in their own right, but they're completely off-topic in this thread. If you want to discuss them please take it to Politics or Humanities, but kindly stay on-topic here.

Thanks

walshb

taconnol wrote: »

I am all for salaries increasing with responsibility but the amount that consultants are paid is ridiculous. There are many professions that can claim to be extremely important but they don't get the huge salaries. Also, consultants here are allowed to use public facilities for free, whereas in the UK they rightly have to pay for them.

walshb, whether I work in the sector or not is entirely irrelevant. I'm glad you pointed out how diverse SA is. There are a lot of extremely poor people there. What exactly poverty gap between the West and the "poor" countries are you waiting for before you decide that they need some help? You should read on up things like ecological debt and colonialism as well. Arguing just about SA is nonsensical, are you going to say the same thing about the rest of the countries, or just base it on 1 country?

Yes, and there are a lot of poor people in Ireland too.

Don't try and make out that we are somehow ahead of SA.

That's laughable and I 'll never accept that silly statement.

Ireland is IMO behind SA in so many ways. It's them who should be
bloody donating to us.

walshb

Zaph wrote: »

OK folks, poverty in other countries and foreign aid are important topics in their own right, but they're completely off-topic in this thread. If you want to discuss them please take it to Politics or Humanities, but kindly stay on-topic here.

Thanks

Okey doke!

Dragan

walshb wrote: »

If they can provide it and they are 'poor', why can't Ireland? It's a simple question!

Because our health service is in the ****, and the way we have been trying to rectify that is simply to pile more money into it for the last few years which simply hasn't worked.

What that implies ( to me anyway ) is a massive amount of waste and mismanagement at a local level. The possibility that mistakes were made but nobody taken to task also springs to mind.

What we need is mounting pressure for a rebuild of the system, planned and projected and budgeted accordingly, with Floodgates and Benchmarks around timings and performance.

In short, in my opinion, the health service needs to be run like a business but with the main goal of dropping costs and if your Johnny on the Spot and you can't get the job done then you need to be shown the door.

Pilling more money into a sector with more holes in it that OJ's defence is completely pointless.

Personally the Health Service has always been ****e in my experience. My first time in Hospital that i recall i was left sitting on a chair in the waiting room for 9 hours with the best part of my elbow sticking out nicely under the skin. 11 hours after i was first seen i finally left the hospital. And i was 11.

People talk about the Health Service because it's the problem de jour when in fact it's been ****ed for longer than most of us would like to admit.

The tactics we have tried over the last decade haven't worked.

Although it does amuse me to see high level government officials lining up to prove what Eisten said about Insanity.

tallaght01

taconnol wrote: »

I am all for salaries increasing with responsibility but the amount that consultants are paid is ridiculous. There are many professions that can claim to be extremely important but they don't get the huge salaries. Also, consultants here are allowed to use public facilities for free, whereas in the UK they rightly have to pay for them.

Well, it's a bit off topic, but......

I don't know of many other jobs with that kind of responsibility that get paid less. Bear in mind that there aren't that many consultants, and they're responsible for the provision of healthcare for massive amounts of people. Plus they're on-call all hours. That's a big part of their salary. 240k per annum is a big salary. But for the responsibility and skill I don't think it's outrageous.

Get one of the top lawyers/accountants in the country on call for 96 hours every few weeks, on top of a 55-70 hour week and ask how much they'd charge.

The reason that they're allowed use public services is because the hospitals can't pay them the market rate, so as a benefit in kind they're allowed use hospital premises for private work. It's cheaper all round for that reason.

To deal with WalshB's points about SA. You can't judge a country by it's extravagence. India still receives aid from abroad, yet it hosts some pretty extravagant events.

I used to work in the Soweto. You'd nearly die of shame to walk through that area. You just would not believe the poverty.

The very important point about SA, is that a lot of our aid goes towards the very poor areas. These areas are chock full of illegal immigrants. The AIDS and gender violence issues that plague these areas are endemic amongst the illegal immigrant population.

These people don't benefit from SA's wealth. They are ignored by the government. They are not ignored by our aid packages.

SA is a much poorer country than Ireland anyway.

Macha

Alright sorry Zaph,

My final verdict: take it from the overpaid consultants (Sorry tallagh01) and get a programme like this running, or set up another front line service! It's ridiculous how many vital frontline health services in this country are propped up by charities.

tallaght01

taconnol wrote: »

Alright sorry Zaph,

My final verdict: take it from the overpaid consultants (Sorry tallagh01) and get a programme like this running, or set up another front line service! It's ridiculous how many vital frontline health services in this country are propped up by charities.

Well, you'll get what you pay for. If you literally chop people's salaries in half overnight they will leave the health service. I know I would. I've never taken a penny of private healthcare money in my life and have no intention of ever doing so. But, altruism doesn't pay the mortgage. It's a naive and unworkable solution, that would result in the people who have cervical ca not having any consultants left to treat them.

If you want to improve healthcare, the you can't just shift ( a relatively small amount of) money from one area to the other. Wrecking tertiary healthcare to benefit primary healthcare is not the answer here.

walshb

I promise guys, last post on this.

The saving the dept are talking about is a pissy 9 million.

Now, surely that 9 million can be taken from the 900 to compensate. That's all
I am saying. The 900 Million is an acutaul 9 million increase from the 891 spent in 2008. This is why I have such an issue here. They increase the 'overseas' budget by 9 million and cut the vaccine by the same amount?
Why not leave the overseas budget at 891 and allow the poxy vaccine for our
children. It does incense me!

And anyone dares to question it and we have the likes of David Begg preaching
to us that it's our 'moral imperative'. The damn cheek of him!

BTW, apologies Zaph!

walshb

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, it's a bit off topic, but......



To deal with WalshB's points about SA. You can't judge a country by it's extravagence. India still receives aid from abroad, yet it hosts some pretty extravagant events.

I used to work in the Soweto. You'd nearly die of shame to walk through that area. You just would not believe the poverty.

The very important point about SA, is that a lot of our aid goes towards the very poor areas. These areas are chock full of illegal immigrants. The AIDS and gender violence issues that plague these areas are endemic amongst the illegal immigrant population.

These people don't benefit from SA's wealth. They are ignored by the government. They are not ignored by our aid packages.

SA is a much poorer country than Ireland anyway.

Ignored by their government? So if we were ignored by ours, which we are, to a degree, do I see the SA government wading in to help. It's not our responsibility here and it's interfering and causing more problems! And as long as we keep supporting SA, why should their governmnet bother to help. We are fuelling this problem and people cannot see it. Ah, sure screw our own, won't the Irish help them!

tallaght01

walshb wrote: »

I promise guys, last post on this.

The saving the dept are talking about is a pissy 9 million.

Now, surely that 9 million can be taken from the 900 to compensate. That's all
I am saying. The 900 Million is an acutaul 9 million increase from the 891 spent in 2008. This is why I have such an issue here. They increase the 'overseas' budget by 9 million and cut the vaccine by the same amount?
Why not leave the overseas budget at 891 and allow the poxy vaccine for our
children. It does incense me!

And anyone dares to question it and we have the likes of David Begg preaching
to us that it's our 'moral imperative'. The damn cheek of him!

BTW, apologies Zaph!

It's a fair point walshB, as you're looking for a source of funding for the cervical ca programme. And that's what people should be doing.

My problem is that you're basing the importance of a healthcare intervention on the nationality of the recipients. Now, we already spend way way way way more money on our healthcare than we do on international healthcare.

How many lives will starting the vaccine programme a year earlier save? Not many I'd imagine.

How many lives will you save by spending 9 million abroad? Lots.

I just think that there's got to be another way to get the cash of we're really that despeate to start the programme right this minute.

tallaght01

walshb wrote: »

Ignored by their government? So if we were ignored by ours, which we are, to a degree, do I see the SA government wading in to help. It's not our responsibility here and it's interfering and causing more problems! And as long as we keep supporting SA, why should their governmnet bother to help. We are fuelling this problem and people cannot see it. Ah, sure screw our own, won't the Irish will help them!

Our government pretty much ignores the health of our illegal immigrants, too. Not many of them will be benefitting from the cervical ca vaccine.

Doesn't mean everyone else should ignore them.

cuckoo

/pulls on my contentious opinion hat

Should the government be providing the vaccine at all?

Contagious diseases such as measles, etc are public health issues, and I believe vaccination is vital.

But....the HPV virus is contracted through sexual activity. We choose to be sexually active (by and large, let's ignore rape and sexual assault for a moment).

If we choose to be sexually active, shouldn't we pay for the vaccines ourselves? If parents want their children to get the vaccine, shouldn't they pay for it?

There is an element of personal responsibility - we wouldn't buy a car from a garage and then assume it'll run for years and years without a mechanic ever looking at it, without checking the tire pressure ourselves and topping up the oil and petrol.

So, why should the government be responsible for our bodies? Cervical screening has been available for years (albeit at a price, which could be claimed against tax/partially claimed from health insurance). I'm assuming medical card holders had free screening.

We now have a free screening program - so, now the trip to get a smear text won't cost us anything, bar the petrol if we drive there.

tallaght01

It's a fair point, cuckoo, but I guess the people who'd be more at risk of cervical ca are often those who wouldn't be able to afford the 50 euro to see the doctor, and then the cost of the vaccine.

shellyboo

cuckoo wrote: »

/pulls on my contentious opinion hat

Should the government be providing the vaccine at all?

Contagious diseases such as measles, etc are public health issues, and I believe vaccination is vital.

But....the HPV virus is contracted through sexual activity. We choose to be sexually active (by and large, let's ignore rape and sexual assault for a moment).

If we choose to be sexually active, shouldn't we pay for the vaccines ourselves? If parents want their children to get the vaccine, shouldn't they pay for it?

There is an element of personal responsibility - we wouldn't buy a car from a garage and then assume it'll run for years and years without a mechanic ever looking at it, without checking the tire pressure ourselves and topping up the oil and petrol.

So, why should the government be responsible for our bodies? Cervical screening has been available for years (albeit at a price, which could be claimed against tax/partially claimed from health insurance). I'm assuming medical card holders had free screening.

We now have a free screening program - so, now the trip to get a smear text won't cost us anything, bar the petrol if we drive there.

So, now, hang on... women who don't want to get cervical cancer just shouldn't have sex? And if they do, they have to pay? By that rationale, if you don't want to catch flu you should lock yourself in an isolated room... or if you don't want to catch tonsilitis, you should never kiss anyone... The difference being that people die of cancer.

HPV is also a contagious disease, one which can eventually cause a terminal illness. I can't think of anything that's more worth a vaccination programme.

tallaght01

shellyboo wrote: »

So, now, hang on... women who don't want to get cervical cancer just shouldn't have sex? And if they do, they have to pay? By that rationale, if you don't want to catch flu you should lock yourself in an isolated room... or if you don't want to catch tonsilitis, you should never kiss anyone... The difference being that people die of cancer.

HPV is also a contagious disease, one which can eventually cause a terminal illness. I can't think of anything that's more worth a vaccination programme.

I don't htink cuckoo is claiming the vaccine shouldn't be available. She's just asking why the government should have to pay for it.

It's a reasonable question. I mean, the government would probably achive better results giving everyone fruit and veg to eat every day, but they don't. There's all kinds of things with potential benefits that aren't funded.

I disagree with her, for various reasons, but it's still a fair question IMO

shellyboo

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't htink cuckoo is claiming the vaccine shouldn't be available. She's just asking why the government should have to pay for it.

It's a reasonable question. I mean, the government would probably achive better results giving everyone fruit and veg to eat every day, but they don't. There's all kinds of things with potential benefits that aren't funded.

I disagree with her, for various reasons, but it's still a fair question IMO

I know that's not what she was saying... I was saying that I don't think there's a disease that's more worthy of government money. And the HPV vaccine doesn't have 'potential benefits' - it would prevent cervical cancer in 95% of cases.

cuckoo

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's a fair point, cuckoo, but I guess the people who'd be more at risk of cervical ca are often those who wouldn't be able to afford the 50 euro to see the doctor, and then the cost of the vaccine.

In an ideal world, if someone can't afford the 50 euro to see the doctor then they should have a medical card.

If viagra is free for medical card holders (possibly on repeat prescription for years), then so should the cervical cancer vaccination. For those not on the medical card, then there should be tax relief on the cost of the vaccination.

shellyboo wrote: »

So, now, hang on... women who don't want to get cervical cancer just shouldn't have sex? And if they do, they have to pay? By that rationale, if you don't want to catch flu you should lock yourself in an isolated room... or if you don't want to catch tonsilitis, you should never kiss anyone... The difference being that people die of cancer.

HPV is also a contagious disease, one which can eventually cause a terminal illness. I can't think of anything that's more worth a vaccination programme.

I'm just throwing out there the idea of personal responsibility.

A healthy diet with lots of fibre lowers people's risk of colon cancer, but the government doesn't give us free boxes of weetabix.

tallaght01

shellyboo wrote: »

I know that's not what she was saying... I was saying that I don't think there's a disease that's more worthy of government money. And the HPV vaccine doesn't have 'potential benefits' - it would prevent cervical cancer in 95% of cases.

Why is there not any other disease more worthy of government money?

70-80 women die each year. The vaccine cold potentially prevent most cervical ca.

How do you think those figures will be altered if we wait a year or 2 to bring it in?

I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that this isn't quite the disaster it's being made out to be just yet.

tallaght01

cuckoo wrote: »

In an ideal world, if someone can't afford the 50 euro to see the doctor then they should have a medical card.

That's very often not always true, though. The people who get lost to this kind of programme are those who are under financial pressure, rather than being poor. Those who would struggle to have a spare 100 euro for the whole process. That's particularly the case when prevention is the issue. These people might scrape the cash together if their kid was very sick. But they have a very low uptake of preventative services, as it's something you can potentially put off for years.

luckat

Harney's magic touch strikes again. </sparkle>

Am I the only one who suspects that if it were bóllock cancer the government would rush to provide the vaccine?