Cervical cancer vaccine

S

sandrat

Registered User
Messages
920
I see they are definately scrapping this now after an opposition motion was defeated tonight. It makes me really angry but sure what can we do, they are leaving harney in charge for the long hall by the looks of things
 
They could probably afford the vaccine if the civil service stopped buying the pencils with the eraser on top and moved to the non eraser type
...
 
sandrat said:
I see they are definately scrapping this now after an opposition motion was defeated tonight. It makes me really angry but sure what can we do, they are leaving harney in charge for the long hall by the looks of things
Click to expand...

I think there has to be more to it than what we are hearing as surely Harney wouldn't put herself in the line of fire over €10million. I heard her speak to Ray d'Arcy and thought she put her point across very well while he clearly couldn't cope with her.
 
It makes me angry that they are scrapping it but at the same time - and this is a bit controversial - I wonder how many parents will decide they cannot afford the €600 for the vaccine for their twelve year old daughter but that they can afford to spend a ridiculous amount on presents this Christmas which will soon be forgotten about?
 
on the other side of things other people might be willing tom go to a money lender to get that money. Wonder if any of the health insurers will start covering the cost?
 

Well then should probably look at the hundreds of thousands that she is spending on public relations and press advisors and ask is she getting value for money. I have not heard one reasonable argument against introducing the vacine apart from economic cost.
 
Purple said:
That's the only one being put foreward.
Click to expand...
And there's nothing reasonable about that excuse either.

Of all the things he's done, and I am absolutely not a fan of his...at least James McDaid had some courage of his convictions and refused to vote on the motion in the Dail. 1 TD, 1 Motion...it's a start !
 

She has said that the vaccine will be introduced just not next year as planned and that the screening will be put in place first which makes some sense. As it is to do with sexual activity the vaccination of 12 year old girls can surely be put off for a year or two. She also said that the vaccination will be brought to secondary schools to pick up on the girls that have missed out at primary level. So she is not saying she wont introduce it she is saying that she has the funds to do one at a time and the screening process is more important as it will pick up on problems already existing and hopefully save lives.
 
Purple said:
That's the only one being put foreward.
Click to expand...

So there isn't more to it than we think? The Government has decided that not protecting young girls from cervical cancer is worth saving around €10m (Have never heard a precise figure). It really does begger belief that they can't find that sum of money elsewhere in a multi-billion euro budget.
 

Some fair points but I still can't agree with her. If we are lucky enough to have a vacination against any form of cancer we are mad not to be using it. Screening is not guaranteed to spot every case so surely it is better to stop people getting the disease in the first place. I am sure €10m can be found.
 
do you really think if there isn't enough to do 12 year olds now that there will be enough for a catch up programme in a few years time? the screening programme is already in place
 
sandrat said:
do you really think if there isn't enough to do 12 year olds now that there will be enough for a catch up programme in a few years time? the screening programme is already in place
Click to expand...


She also went on to say that the nurses required for the vaccinations were being used for the mennigitis vaccination presently being administered and that 80% success was for the screening process whereby the vaccination only offered 70% success rate. The other valid point was that 12 old girls (in the vast majority of cases) are not sexually active and shouldn't be by law until 17.
 
MrMan said:
The other valid point was that 12 old girls (in the vast majority of cases) are not sexually active and shouldn't be by law until 17.
Click to expand...

How is that a valid point ?

Let's get rid of drug treatment centres, Suicide helplines, free legal aid for those convicted, etc.etc.

Lets not be naive here, the HPV vaccine costs damn all in the grand scheme of things and yet it's being axed. Doctors are up in arms about it (well, some anyway) but won't agree to a cut in the payment of over-70s on the medical card scheme to the same as under-70s. Everyone thinks it's a good idea but won't give up anything for it. Typical of Ireland in the recent past.
 
MrMan said:
The other valid point was that 12 old girls (in the vast majority of cases) are not sexually active and shouldn't be by law until 17.
Click to expand...
It's not just a question of vaccinating before a girl becomes sexually active. The vaccine is most effective at 11-12 when immune levels are naturally higher than at older ages. From the Mayo Clinic website:
"The cervical cancer vaccine is recommended for girls ages 11 to 12, although it may be used in girls as young as age 9. This allows a girl's immune system to be activated before she's likely to encounter HPV. Vaccinating at this age also allows for the highest antibody levels. The higher the antibody levels, the greater the protection."

And just because girls 'shouldn't' be sexually active before 17 doesn't mean that they aren't - so it is better to give the vaccine early to cover as many as possible before they are sexually active rather than 'punishing' early sexual activity.
I don't know how we as a country and as individual parents could look our daughters in the eye in 10/15/20 years time and say 'we had an opportunity to protect you against some types of cancer but decided a flat screen tv/ministers pensions/whatever were better ways to spend money'.

I have a 12 year old daughter and will get her vaccinated before the end of the year so I can at least get higher rate tax relief on the medical spend before that is swiped away too.
 
€600 for a few visits to the doctor (and the practice nurse will administer the vaccine anyway) and the cost of the vaccine itself. How does the €600 cost break down (what is the vaccine cost and what is the cost to administer)?
This is like the “Gold Card” for over 70’s; the health service can’t negotiate a reasonable price with their suppliers so when they get fleeced they throw their toys out of the pram.
 
Orka,
I have a 12 year old also who I plan to have vaccinated.
But there are 3 injections in the vaccination.
You get the first one, then a month later the 2nd, then 6 months later the 3rd.
So it will not be possible to have the course completed by the end of the year. Should we pay for the course up front then this year to avail of the higher rate relief? I haven't discussed this with my gp yet, but I have been told it will cost €230 per visit. €200 for vaccine with €30 added for the nurse to administer the injection.
So should I hand over the €660 at the first visit in 2008? Is this allowed even if the course can't be finished til mid 2009?
 

I think the cost in the UK is something like £300 for the vaccine. I have a friend in Australia who told me she paid AUD 460 (EUR 250) for the vaccine plus the costs of the GP visits for her older daughter. All 12 and 13 years old get it free.

Either way yet again Ireland is the most expensive. There are two options as well from two different drug makers so it is not as if one drug maker has a monopoly or patent on the drug so it should be possible to get a somewhat competitive quote. And you imagine the State could get it cheaper buying in baulk than individual families approaching their GP.
 
Forgot to add to last post... A friend of mine is a pharmacist and checked with his supplier and was told the vaccine is €627 to buy so I think what the GP has quoted me above is very reasonable.


ADD:
Ok, before I saw Sunny's post! Wow, talk about creaming it. Where is the extra cost being added from?
 
Purple said:
€600 for a few visits to the doctor (and the practice nurse will administer the vaccine anyway) and the cost of the vaccine itself. How does the €600 cost break down (what is the vaccine cost and what is the cost to administer)?
Click to expand...
I've heard that the cost here is double that in other countries which is a bit of a sickener. The doctor who did the research that led to the vaccine was on the radio this morning - he gets NONE of the royalties/profits so I guess the spoils are split mainly to the drug company and some to the doctors practices administering the vaccine. The doctor did get the Nobel prize though which is something...

I'm certainly hoping to pre-pay the course of three and I don't think the doctor will refuse! Given that many professionals require full pre-payment, I don't think there will be any issue from Revenue with pre-paying - the expense could be argued to be 'incurred' once you sign up for the course of three. We have pre-paid orthodontist bills due over the next year or so and I think this is fairly common at the moment. Orthodontists, obstetricians and cervical cancer vaccine doctors will probably have a very happy Christmas this year with all the pre-payments - and a lean 2009 (but at least they'll escape the 1% income levy on all the money they are pre-paid in 2008!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register