Cervical cancer vaccine program scrapped

Nevyn · 05-11-2008 1:06pm #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1105/1225523373382.html

Government gives up cervical cancer vaccine plan
In this section »

* Elton John to play concert at Thomond Park
* Developer makes major changes to Carlton site plan

ELAINE EDWARDS and MARTIN WALL

THE GOVERNMENT has abandoned a plan announced just three months ago to have all 12-year-old girls vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer, citing "very scarce" health resources.

Minister for Health Mary Harney said yesterday that the economic situation had "rapidly and seriously" deteriorated since the plan was announced in August.

The human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination would have cost an estimated €9.7 million annually. Between 70 and 80 women with cervical cancer die in Ireland each year and some 200 new cases are diagnosed.

The decision was immediately criticised by the Opposition and by the Irish Cancer Society, which asked the Government to make a clear commitment to restore the vaccination scheme "at the earliest possible opportunity".

In a statement, Ms Harney said: "Public resources, including those for health, are very scarce indeed and will remain so.

"I have decided that the best that can be achieved in these circumstances is to prioritise funding for the development of the cervical screening programme and treatment services at the eight designated cancer centres, which includes the challenge of funding very expensive cancer drugs.

"I will not therefore be proceeding with the introduction of a HPV vaccination programme," she added.

Later Ms Harney told reporters that the Health Service Executive had not been able to say how much the procurement cost for the vaccine would be.

But the Minister said that the administration cost, set out by the HSE was "not inconsiderable".

Irish Cancer Society chief executive John McCormack said the decision was "very disappointing".

"If this is going to be the beginning of a pattern around hard-fought decisions being reversed, the Irish Cancer Society would be awfully concerned about it," Mr McCormack added.

He acknowledged that it would be difficult to have a commitment made to the programme in the current economic environment.

"But this is a cancer prevention measure and one euro's prevention is as good as two euros of cure."

Fine Gael health spokesman Dr James Reilly said that the decision was "a slap in the face to people who believe in prevention being better than cure".

"For a miserly sum, they are now going to expose our children, our young women, to cervical cancer," he said.

Ms Harney said the continuation and expansion of the Cancer Control Programme under Prof Tom Keane "remains a priority" and that funding of €15 million had been made available for this programme.

Sinn Féin health spokesman Caoimhghín O Caoláin said that the decision was "disgraceful" at a time when tax breaks were being left intact for the developers of private hospitals.

The Minister said last night that the Government was currently rolling out the National Cervical Screening Programme, Cervical Check, which had the potential to cut mortality rates from cervical cancer by "up to 80 per cent".

"The programme will provide free smear tests through primary care settings to the 1.1 million women living in Ireland aged between 25 and 60 years," Ms Harney said.

There are more than 200 strains of HPV, a small number of which are associated with cancer of the cervix, the neck of the womb.

Up to 2,000 women in Ireland each year are diagnosed with changes to the cells of the cervix that, while not cancerous, have the potential to become cancerous over a long period of time if they are not treated.

© 2008 The Irish Times

ffs shows how much she care about women's health, really it's sheds loads cheaper then having to treat people for cancer.

Mena · 05-11-2008 1:08pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

health, really it's sheds loads cheaper then having to treat people for cancer.

Only in the long term, and we all know a politician can't see more than 5 minutes into the future.

Idiots :mad:

keane2097 · 05-11-2008 1:09pm

I heard this yesterday and must say I was absolutely appalled.

shellyboo · 05-11-2008 1:15pm

This is fcuking appaling. Surely the cost can be then offset by the lower need for smear testing across the board? If I was young enough, I'd be off to my doc to get the vaccine, I think it's a disgrace that they're scrapping something that could literally save lives and, in the future, save the HSE shedloads of cash.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 05-11-2008 1:26pm

Ridiculous, 9.7mil is nothing on what cancer costs, never mind the emotional trauma.

The vaccine also prevents against genital warts which being the most common STI costs the state a fair bit too.

brianthebard · 05-11-2008 1:44pm

Its a joke. Why can't we have a vote of no confidence in the government?

Dragan · 05-11-2008 2:08pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Ridiculous, 9.7mil is nothing on what cancer costs, never mind the emotional trauma.

That's a project 9.7 million, annually. Close to 100 million ( projected ) over it's first decade of being in action and thats not taking into account increase in population size of those who will need it and so forth.

I want to be very clear here that i think it is a mistake to not follow through with this, but i am also more than happy to admit that i don't have indept knowledge of how the countries coffers are at the moment, nor do i have a great deal on info on where this money would be better put.

As such, i am not going to accuse Mary Harney of sentencing people to death as this cannot have been an easy decision to make and it may have been a difficult case of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

I will keep a close eye and see what other information comes out over the next couple of weeks.

rainbow kirby · 05-11-2008 2:41pm

Absolutely shocking. Yet again this government proves it has no regard for womens health.

Nevyn · 05-11-2008 2:41pm

With 70 deaths from the disease each year, Ireland has one of the highest rates of cervical cancer in Europe. Experts say that a combination of vaccination and cervical cancer screening could prevent up to 95% of cases.

This is is depressing, most EU countries have already rolled this program out.

panda100 · 05-11-2008 2:58pm

This is absolutely disgraceful. Why did Harney allow ludicrous tax breaks to millionares to build private hospitals on public land? Why werent these property developers heavily taxed like we are being now? And then Drumm gets an €80,000 bonus on top of his €370,000 a year salary! As usual the rich get richer and the ordinary people have to pay for their mistakes.This 'no money' line is bullcrap.

On top of this Its a joke that Ireland doesnt have a free cervical screening programmes, most countries do.

Wibbs · 05-11-2008 3:07pm

panda100 wrote: »

This is absolutely disgraceful/This 'no money' line is bullcrap.

This just about sums it up for me. Another unreal decision from a bunch of morons adding to the long list of such decisions that have scuppered our appalling health service.

kmick · 05-11-2008 3:10pm

I think CJ Haughey said it best when he said "grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented". Mary must go.

Macha · 05-11-2008 3:12pm

Yes, according to this website:

A vaccine to help prevent cervical cancer would be a major step forward in womens’ health. It is hoped that the vaccines will prevent at least 70% (seven in ten) of the most common type of cervical cancer (squamous cell).

Why is it that this government does not GET long-term thinking? Surely investment in a programme like this would ultimately save them money? 180 women are diagnosed every year. Clearly the pockets of the builders are more precious to FF than women's wombs.

old boy · 05-11-2008 3:16pm

i hope all of you voted for that crowd in the last elections, remember all this when you go to vote in the future.

cuckoo · 05-11-2008 3:20pm

I'm a little conflicted about the issue of the vaccination - the manufacturers have spent a lot of time and money creating awareness of cervical cancer (good) and the benefits of their drug (good for their balance sheet).

I have no beef with drug manufacturers making a profit, but, this a vaccine that protects against a percentage of strains of the HPV virus that can lead to cervical cancer. Not all women with the virus will go on to develop cervical cancer.

This is not like the measles vaccine - it does not provide blanket protection against all HPV viruses. And, as there were no plans for a program for boys to receive the vaccine in Ireland (afaik), the HPV virus would still be alive and well in Ireland.

I'd rather the HSE spent the money on medical cards for the over 70s, and focused on the cervical screening program. Cervical cancer can be treated very succesfully if detected.

Yes, I am angry that the HSE doesn't have more money, and am suspicious that it mismanages that it does have a lot of the time - but we can't expect the government to pay for everything all the time. There's less money coming into Ireland's bank account - so Ireland needs to have less out goings.

shellyboo · 05-11-2008 3:21pm

panda100 wrote: »

On top of this Its a joke that Ireland doesnt have a free cervical screening programmes, most countries do.

I thought we did, no? Once every three years from the age of 25? Or do we have to pay for that?

Nevyn · 05-11-2008 3:23pm

shellyboo wrote: »

I thought we did, no? Once every three years from the age of 25? Or do we have to pay for that?

We have had to pay for that or try get an appointment in the local clinics with very very long waiting lists.

there is a new program to roll out free smear tests done in dr surgeries all around the country, the details are in the free fanny care thread.

shellyboo · 05-11-2008 3:27pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

We have had to pay for that or try get an appointment in the local clinics with very very long waiting lists.

there is a new program to roll out free smear tests done in dr surgeries all around the country, the details are in the free fanny care thread.

Ah, ok, cheers! Just wondering since I'll be going for my first one in a few months

I was under the impression that it was free - bit crap that we have to pay, but for the sake of your health I suppose people will pay anything.

Nevyn · 05-11-2008 3:33pm

Well check the web site and sign up on it.
http://www.cervicalcheck.ie/
Hopefully there will be someone doing it near you soon.

ronbyrne2005 · 05-11-2008 3:35pm

Yet the government have pledged billions in bailouts to their building chums thru their homechoice loans scheme and government equity scheme. Tell your friends never to vote for these corrupt selfish Fianna Fail-ures again.

Macha · 05-11-2008 3:38pm

I think a large problem with cervical checking in Ireland is that a lot of girls are under the impression that you either have to be over 25 or be sexually active.

A journalist friend of mine has interviewed girls in their early 20s who had to have developed cervical cancer, who waited and waited.

I didn't think I could hate FF any more but...they just managed to trump themselves!

Nevyn · 05-11-2008 3:49pm

Well I have emailed Harney and all of my T.D.s letting them know just how unhappy about this I am.

shellyboo · 05-11-2008 3:52pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well check the web site and sign up on it.
http://www.cervicalcheck.ie/
Hopefully there will be someone doing it near you soon.

Thanks Thaed... had a look at the site and looks like my own doctor does it (she's a women's health specialist). Hurrah, but boo for speculums

Nevyn · 05-11-2008 3:58pm

Better a speculum now and then then a cauterising laser and chemo later.

Sherifu · 05-11-2008 3:59pm

Read about this earlier. They have their priorities straight :rolleyes:

shellyboo · 05-11-2008 4:04pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Better a speculum now and then then a cauterising laser and chemo later.

Eep! Good point. I shall embrace the speculum then so.

Macha · 05-11-2008 4:12pm

Yes...the laser is not fun...:(

tallaght01 · 05-11-2008 4:58pm

I'm all for preventative measured for diseases like cervical ca.

BUT, if times were tough, and I had to choose what to spend 100 million on over the next decade, I have to say cervical screening vaccines probably wouldn't be my number 1 priority.

In good times, it is well worth it, But it would depend on what we were going to sacrifice. If we spent the money on the vaccines, what exactly would we NOT spend it on?

That, to me, is the key question.

We should also bear in mind that making our economic situation worse in the pursuit of a cervical ca magic bullet is a double edged sword, because the disease affects poorer women the most. So, protecting the economy is an important part of the fight against most diseases.

I don't know enough of the details of this specific situation to try and work out whether it's the right choice or the wrong choice. But it's not quite as simple as it is maybe being made out.

walshb · 05-11-2008 5:20pm

I read that about the vaccine being scrapped and I think it's a disgrace, considering soon after I also read this.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-spend-on-foreign-aid-to--hit-8364900m-in-2008-1521700.html

The sums just don't add up!

tallaght01 · 05-11-2008 5:34pm

walshb wrote: »

I read that about the vaccine being scrapped and I think it's a disgrace, considering soon after I also read this.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-spend-on-foreign-aid-to--hit-8364900m-in-2008-1521700.html

The sums just don't add up!

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.

Macha · 05-11-2008 5:42pm

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

serfboard · 05-11-2008 5:42pm

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 · 05-11-2008 5:44pm

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 · 05-11-2008 5:47pm

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 · 05-11-2008 5:50pm

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 · 05-11-2008 5:50pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:04pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:13pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:13pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:20pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:22pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:23pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:23pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:24pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:27pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:28pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:38pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:42pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:51pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:55pm

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 · 05-11-2008 6:58pm

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.

Cervical cancer vaccine program scrapped

Comments