Sexual health frankness is key to long relationship

Young people think frank conversations about their sex lives signal that a relationship will last, says a nanny state survey.

The government funded Populus poll of more than 1,200 15 to 24-year-olds cited talking about sexual infections and a person's sexual past as key.

They even thought this was a better sign of a relationship getting serious than meeting parents.

But 73% admitted that they did not talk about sexually transmitted diseases before having sex with a new partner.

And 30% said they felt uncomfortable asking a new partner to use a condom.

The research, which was conducted on behalf of the government's "Sex. Worth Talking About" campaign, provides a snapshot of the milestones that this generation think important for a lasting relationship.

Top of the list was "talking openly together about sexual history and discussing sexually transmitted infections tests together", which 70% thought important.

This was ahead of "meeting the parents", which was thought significant by 66%, and "not always having to wear make-up", cited by 47%.

Much lower down were "meeting friends", 40%, and "being given space in the cupboard to leave clothes", 30%.
 

The survey showed that while young people valued openness about sexual diseases, many were too embarrassed to talk frankly with their partners.

While half of respondents thought that a new partner who was unwilling to discuss these topics would not be around for long, a quarter confessed they were too embarrassed to talk to their partner about safe sex, sexually transmitted infections and contraception.

Paula Hall, from the relationship charity Relate, said she was not surprised that people thought openness about sexual health was important for the success of a relationship.

"If people are not intimate enough to be open about this, the relationship is unlikely to go far."

She said the findings were both "encouraging" and "depressing".

"The fact that discussion of sexual infection is so high up young peoples' agenda is really good," she said.

But she said it was "worrying that this is still an embarrassing topic, even among today's generation of kids who expect a high degree of openness in their relationships".

Modern relationships

Dr Catherine Hood, spokesperson for the "Sex. Worth Talking About" campaign, said: "These findings reveal much about the modern relationship game.

"While many young couples realise the significance of being able to talk openly about accepting tests for sexually transmitted infections, sheer embarrassment is preventing them from doing so, and potentially risking their sexual health as well as the future of their relationship."

She stressed the importance of young people being tested for chlamydia, a sexually transmitted infection which often doesn't have any symptoms.

"If left untreated, chlamydia can lead to infertility and other serious health problems, and so it's vital that new couples take responsibility for their own sexual health by talking openly about safe sex," she added.

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8549476.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8549476.stm

Cervical cancer link to early sex as sexually transmitted infection, HPV, causes most cases

Having sex at an early age can double the risk of developing cervical cancer, a study of 20,000 women suggests.

The investigation into why poorer women have a higher risk of the disease found they tended to have sex about four years earlier than more affluent women.

Previously, it had been thought the disparity was the result of low screening uptake in poorer areas.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer findings are published in the British Journal of Cancer.

Although the difference in cervical cancer incidence between rich and poor - across the world - had been noted for many years, it was not clear why this is the case.

Especially as rates of infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) - the sexually transmitted infection linked with the vast majority of cervical cancers - seemed to be similar across all groups.

The study confirmed that the higher rates of cervical cancer were not linked to higher HPV levels.
   
But what it did reveal is that the two fold increased risk was largely explained by women from poorer backgrounds starting to have sex at a younger age.

The age at which a woman had her first baby was also an important factor. Screening was found to have some effect on the level of risk.

But the number of sexual partners a woman has and smoking did not account for any of the difference.

Study leader, Dr Silvia Franceschi, said the findings were not restricted to adolescence and the risk of cervical cancer was also higher in women who had their first sexual intercourse at 20 rather than 25 years.

"In our study, poorer women had become sexually active on average four years earlier. So they may have also been infected with HPV earlier, giving the virus more time to produce the long sequence of events that are needed for cancer development."

Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK, said the study raised some interesting questions.

"Although women can be infected by HPV at any age, infections at a very young age may be especially dangerous as they have more time to cause damage that eventually leads to cancer.

"Importantly, the results back up the need for the HPV vaccination to be given in schools at an age before they start having sex, especially among girls in deprived areas."

So after a dozen years of nanny state sex lectures the current crop of school leavers are worse off- as are the UK taxpayers.

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8420690.stm

Breast removal for cancer is postcode lottery, study shows

Women with breast cancer are five times more likely to undergo a mastectomy rather than have less invasive surgery in some parts of the country compared with others, research has shown.

Sufferers living in some parts of the North are far more likely to undergo the major operation, rather than having the "breast conserving" surgery more common elsewhere, according to NHS figures revealing a "postcode lottery" in cancer care.

Statistics showing the ratio of mastectomies to less invasive procedures to treat breast cancer, show that Redcar and Cleveland, in the North East, is the place where patients were most likely to have at least one breast removed.

Those in the London borough of Richmond and Twickenham were the most likely to receive treatment which removed just part of their breast, with radiotherapy used to prevent the spread of tumours.

The statistics show that those living in Wolverhampton, West Midlands, the London borough of Kingston, South Staffordshire and Telford in Shropshire were also more likely to have mastectomies.

Research has found that for many women with breast cancer, either treatment has a similar survival rate, if the tumour is of a size where it can be removed without the whole breast being lost. The chance of drastic surgery was highest in the North. 

Women living in Redcar and Cleveland, in the North East, were five times as likely to have their whole breasts removed, rather than part of them, compared with those living in Richmond and Twickenham.

Those in Ashton, Leigh and Wigan, in the North West, Middlesbrough, in the North East and Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire were also most likely to have mastectomies.

The new NHS figures, placed in the House of Commons library, show massive variations in practices across the country. Analysis found no relationship between the patterns and rates of survival in different parts of the country.

Experts said it was impossible to know from the data whether the massive discrepancies reflected the choices made by women from different areas, or pressure put on them by surgeons.

Cancer charities urged surgeons working in the areas most likely to carry out mastectomies, to carry out further investigations.

Women with breast cancer should be offered the option of mastectomy, or less invasive surgery backed by radiotherapy. Research has shown that for most women, the survival chances are similar, although those with larger tumours may have no choice but have the more drastic operation.

Meg McArthur, from Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "These variations are really substantial, and they really do require further investigation. In some cases – such as the way a tumour is positioned, women would have no choice but to have a full mastectomy, but that really wouldn't explain the scale of the difference shown here."

She said it was vital that women diagnosed with breast cancer were given full information about the risks and benefits of different treatments.

"I would want all surgeons to look closely at these figures, and for primary care trusts to examine them closely too," Miss McArthur added.

Dr Jane Maher, chief medical officer for Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said it should not be assumed that women in areas most likely to have mastectomies were necessarily being put under pressure to undergo the procedure. Many women given information about the risks and benefits of both procedures chose the more drastic surgery, because they felt more able to put their fears behind them if they took the most extreme option.

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Breast-removal-for-cancer-is-postcode-lottery-study-shows.html

Cancer research at risk in scramble for care funds

Research into cancer and dementia will come under threat from labour government plans to fund social care, experts warned.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, told The Times that millions of pounds would be “reprioritised” from health research and development to pay the costs of the Social Care Bill..

Money will also be diverted from public health campaigns such as those on swine flu, sexually transmitted diseases and obesity.

The Bill, a key plank of Gordon Brown’s pre-election legislative agenda, has been condemned by Labour peers, scientists and health campaigners. It would guarantee free care at home or other support for up to 400,000 elderly and disabled people from next October, at a cost of £670 million a year.

Mr Burnham, disclosing for the first time how he planned to pay for the proposal, said that £60 million would be diverted from the health service’s research and development (R&D) budget and £50 million from public health promotions.

Further funds will be sought as part of a “major productivity drive”, he said. The NHS is expected to make up to £20 billion in efficiency savings over the next four years. Hospitals could see their income tied to levels of patient satisfaction on matters such as the quality of maternity care.

Scientists warned of the consequences of cutting research budgets, which help to support the clinical trials of new medicines.

Nick Dusic, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said: “This is extremely disturbing as the NHS budget was supposed to be ringfenced to protect long-term investment into the health needs of this country. In any department any raid on the R&D budget is supposed to be discussed first with the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser. If they’ve breached this process it’s an extremely worrying development that needs to be looked into.”

Health ministers are expected to be interrogated in detail about which elements of the R&D budget should be cut to pay for social care as part of a continuing inquiry by the Lords Science and Technology Committee.

Lord Warner of Brockley, the Labour peer and former Health Minister who last week described the social care proposals as “totally misjudged”, said: “I will be looking at the Bill very carefully to see if my worst fears are confirmed and whether the figures really do add up.”

Mr Burnham defended the Bill from claims that it amounted to “an admiral firing an Exocet into his own flagship”.

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6930661.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Chlamydia sexual health testing wasting money

Millions of Pounds have been squandered on the national chlamydia sexual health screening programme, a watchdog says.

The National Audit Office said the NHS had duplicated effort and failed to test as many of the under-25 target group in England as it should have.

Last year £17m could have been saved, nearly half the sum spent, if the programme had been better run, it said.

But the government said such an "ambitious" screening programme was always going to take time to perfect.

The programme was set up in response to rising rates of the so-called silent infection - it often shows no symptoms but if left untreated can cause infertility.
  
Edward Leigh, chairman of the House of Common's Public Accounts Committee, which will now be looking into the issue, added: "This is a classic example of what can go wrong when a national programme is rolled out unthinkingly."

The screening was initially introduced in several pilot areas in 2003, before being rolled out nationally in 2007. So far £100m has been spent on it.

But the NAO said despite the four-year trial period, the health service failed to learn lessons.

The 152 NHS trusts responsible for delivering the programme should have worked in partnership more, the watchdog said.

Money could have been saved by setting up a more centralised purchasing arrangements, while resources had been wasted on developing different branding and advertising campaigns, it said.

Questions were also raised about how the actual screening was done.

The programme was designed to reach out to people not using sexual health clinics and so health officials went out to places like bars and clubs to encourage young people to come forward.

But the NAO said there was little evidence that this had proved effective.

NHS chiefs also struggled to get GPs fully engaged - they are not paid to do the screening under the terms of their contract although some trusts resorted to paying them extra to get involved.

Failed

The problems meant the programme had failed to reach as many people as it should have - something already well documented.

In the first year of the national programme - 2007/8 - just 5% of the 15 to 24-year-old population was screened, well short of the 15% target.

The following year it was made a priority by the government and screening rose to 16%, although that was still short of the 17% target.

The poor reach of the programme and duplication of resources meant the average cost of each test last year was £56, rather than the £33 experts say it should cost. The highest figure recorded by a trust was £255 per test.

What is more, the NAO noted that it appeared one in 10 of those who tested positive did not receive follow-up treatment, rendering the screening pointless.

However, the watchdog admitted this could just have been because the NHS had not recorded their treatment.
  
Mark Davies, from the NAO, said the piloting of the programme had been a "waste of time" as the problems identified by the watchdog should have been addressed before it was expanded.

From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8354932.stm

Health Direct applauds labour U Turn as NHS to end premium rate telephone call charges for patients

Health Direct has long campaigned for the end of a stealth tax on booking doctors appointments through the use of premium rate sex charge telephone calls.

Charges under which patients pay more than the cost of a local call from a landline are being scrapped in England after a consultation.

As we reported in 2007, many NHS organisations use numbers starting with an 0844 or 0845 prefix, which can be up to 30p a minute more expensive to call than a standard local number.

Patients will still dial 084 numbers to get through but tariffs will be adjusted to ensure that they pay only for the cost of a local call, ministers said.

Mike O’Brien, the Health Minister, said: “We have been concerned that some people are paying more than the cost of a local-call rate to contact the NHS. For people on low incomes, and for those who need to contact their doctor or hospital regularly, these costs can soon build up.

“We want to reassure the public that when they contact their GP or hospital, the cost of their call will be no more expensive than if they had dialled a normal landline number.”

A letter will be sent to NHS organisations informing them of the changes this week, while amendments will be made to GP contracts over the coming months.

Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, said: “Patients who call their surgery because they’re ill shouldn’t be penalised because they have to call an 084 number, so we’re pleased that the phone companies who supply these lines to practices have agreed to ensure that their tariffs are in line with local charges.

“Combining the benefits of 084 numbers with an assurance that they won’t cost more than a local phone call is the best solution for patients and practices.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients’ Association, said: “It’s great that the Department of Health has listened to patients. Asking them to pay extra costs for phone calls was unreasonable. Patients have had to wait long enough for the ruling-let’s hope the change happens as quickly as possible.”

Whilst the U turn spin is welcome, no definitive date was given for the time by which these stealth tax charges should be abolished.

2 Health Petitions- via the Number 10 website

Two petitions for you kind consideration- the abolition of sex rate charge numbers  to book doctor appointments and to prevent the closure of a thriving hospital:

Local health centres and NHS medical practices should be banned from using 08 numbers or offer a local 01 or 02 number alternative for booking appointments, as health centres make a profit using these numbers. For example, an 0870 number costs 10 pence per minute (whereby 4.5pence per minute goes to the local hospital).

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Healthtelephone/

Deadline to sign up by: 28 November 2009 –

Ipswich Hospital needs to be kept as a modern and thriving centre of excellence, the public need Ipswich Hospital to remain available to them and this means providing full services, and giving our consultants the support they need to serve the wider community.

The public in this area of the country are frequently ignored for raising real concerns regarding lack of access to services and our medical teams must be supported and heard. Stop taking vital services away, it is not cost effective and it is downright dangerous!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/IpswichHospital

Deadline to sign up by: 21 July 2010

Couples are still being refused IVF treatment in a postcode lottery

Couples are still facing problems getting IVF treatment on the NHS, with some trusts refusing to fund procedures or comply with guidelines, such as a woman’s age.

Regional disparities mean that the same woman can be too old for treatment in one part of the country and too young in another. Two trusts have provided no IVF treatment in the previous two years.

Research suggests that eight out of ten primary care trusts are still failing to follow government recommendations set out in 2004 by the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (NICE), allowing women three free cycles of IVF.

Other eligibility criteria, such as whether one of the couple has a child from a previous relationship, smoking habits and weight, also vary widely, the study shows.

The study, by Grant Shapps, the Conservative MP for Welwyn Hatfield, who has campaigned for better access to fertility treatment, was based on an 80 per cent response rate from trusts in England. It found that provision was worse than two years ago.

In the East Midlands, every trust offered one full cycle of treatment but, in the South East, 41 per cent did not offer IVF to women aged 23 to 39, as set out in the NICE guidance. Some trusts, such as North Lincolnshire, offered IVF only to women between 37 and 39, whereas at least four trusts have an upper age limit of 37. One in eight was failing to comply with guidelines on a woman’s age.

In the East Midlands, no trust would offer treatment to couples in which one partner had a child but 70 per cent would in the North East. Overall, 54 per cent of trusts excluded couples from IVF if one partner had a child from a previous relationship.

Almost half of all trusts said that they wanted couples to have been in a relationship for more than three years. Others wanted one or two years while some asked only if the relationship was “stable”. While many trusts refused IVF to couples who smoked, some allowed treatment if the man was the smoker.

The 2004 NICE guidance said that the NHS should fund three cycles of IVF for women under 40. John Reid, then the Health Secretary, said that couples would be offered one free IVF cycle by April 2005, with a view to three cycles being offered in the future.

By 2007 this was still not happening. Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, wrote to trusts in that year saying that they should be looking to fund three cycles.

Experts have said that the drive to cut the number of multiple births is also being hampered by the lack of access to free IVF. Couples who have the chance of only one cycle on the NHS might wish to have more than one embryo transferred.

The NICE guidance also said that trusts should allow frozen embryos to be transferred as part of one cycle. But very few offered this.

Mr Shapps said that the study, compiled from freedom of information requests, showed that IVF “remains a postcode lottery in this country”. He added: “Budgets are tight and the NHS must set its priorities, but it is wrong to raise expectations in couples who are desperate to start a family only for them to find out later that they won’t get the real help they expected.”

Clare Lewis-Jones, chief executive of the charity Infertility Network UK, said that although there had been an improvement recently in the provision of treatment by some trusts there remained a totally unjustifiable and unfair variation in the criteria used to determine whether couples could have treatment. “This proves that five years on from the issue of the NICE guideline, patients are still facing a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing NHS fertility treatment.”

She urged trusts to accept recommendations laid down in a document, Standardising Access Criteria to NHS Fertility Treatment, produced by Infertility Network UK and funded by the Department of Health.
 

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6740622.ece

Sex, drugs roll up with labour's nanny state- teenage pregnancies a real sex scandal

The disappointing rise in teeanage pregnancies is the result of a shocking failure of labour's nanny state policy.

There have been many policy failures by this labour Government; but few can have been as spectacular as its avowed aim of reducing teenage pregnancies by half.

Since 1998, there has been a reduction of just 11 per cent – and recent trends have been upwards once more.

The strategy has involved the expansion of sex- education programmes and the provision of contraception in school. Girls under 16 can already get the morning-after pill from school nurses without their parents' knowledge.

Yet an academic study has found that encouraging children to talk about sex could have increased the number of pregnancies, by tempting them to become sexually active at an early age.

The evidence is now overwhelming that these schemes are not effective in cutting teenage pregnancy rates.

An improvement in wider educational standards seems to be the most significant factor in reducing teenage pregnancies; yet the Government has failed there, too, especially among the children of poorer families, where the problem is greatest.

More than 12 years after this strategy was launched, and despite the expenditure of many millions of pounds, the UK still has the worst teenage pregnancy problem in western Europe.

Any parent could have told ministers that bringing children into contact with what the study calls "risky peers" might have the opposite effect to that intended. This approach undermines any attempt by parents to discourage their children from having early sexual relationships, and the consequences have been all too predictable.

Yet any suggestion that a moral dimension, or the virtues of abstinence, might be included in sex education classes is derided by those who think they know better – but who have been shown by the failure of their policy to know very little indeed.

Teenage-pregnancies-a-real-sex-scandal

IVF blunders by fertility doctors rise for fifth consecutive year

The number of IVF blunders at British clinics is expected to rise when labour Government figures are published.

Official statistics will show around 200 serious mistakes and "near misses" by fertility doctors - the fifth consecutive year the figure has risen.

Experts have warned that the true number of errors is far higher than those reported.

They have also raised concerns about the standards of fertility clinics and the ability of the watchdog - the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority - to control the industry.

It follows a series of mistakes by staff at IVF clinics.

It recently emerged that a Cardiff fertility clinic implanted a couple's last usable embryo into the wrong woman.

Last month, a London NHS hospital was forced to destroy three embryos after creating them with the wrong sperm.

In 2003-04 there were 15 mistakes for every 10,000 "cycles" of IVF.

But by 2006-07 there were 40 mistakes for each 10,000 cycles.

According to the HFEA, the rise in reported mistakes is a sign of increased vigilance rather than increased failure.

Josephine Quintavalle, from Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: "There will be a lot more cases than people realise. You can't rely on the goodness of people to own up to their mistakes.

"It's incomprehensible how these things can happen - even the busiest clinics rarely deal with more than half a dozen patients each day."

From:
Number-of-IVF-blunders-by-fertility-doctors-to-rise-for-fifth-consecutive-year

Timebomb of Britons unaware they have HIV

Senior doctors accuse the Department of Health of failing to take HIV virus seriously and neglecting to test high risk groups.

More than 20,000 people with HIV are unaware they are carrying the virus and are infecting thousands of others, setting a devastating health “timebomb”, medical experts have warned.

Senior doctors have accused the Department of Health of failing to take the spread of HIV seriously and neglecting to test enough people in high-risk groups, including gay men and heterosexual black Africans.

HIV specialists say they are seeing people in clinics with full-blown Aids who have no idea they have been carrying the virus. They now want all sexually active people to be routinely offered an HIV test.

The Lancet medical journal has published an editorial accusing ministers of an “appalling failure to tackle HIV” and of having “no credible strategy to diagnose and care for those living with, but unaware of, HIV in Britain”.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA), the labour government’s health watchdog, warned that about 77,000 people in the UK have HIV but 21,000 of these do not know they are infected. In 2007, the number of infections through heterosexual contact increased to 960, up from 540 in 2003.

Doctors warn that a third of people with HIV are being diagnosed when their virus is advanced. One London hospital recently treated two teenage sisters, one of whom was pregnant, infected with HIV from the same man. Hospitals are also concerned about men who are diagnosed with HIV but abscond before they can be treated.

They called on the government to take testing more seriously, warning that an A&E target to treat patients within four hours meant people with early symptoms of HIV were not being tested in emergency rooms because of time pressure.

Dr Phillip Hay, reader in HIV medicine at St George’s hospital in Tooting, south London, said testing for the virus should be routine to stop its spread through unprotected sex.

He said: “We have identified some people who have infected multiple individuals”, including couples “where there is a big difference in age between an older adult and a teenager. All men and women accessing medical care should be routinely offered a test”.

The HPA said high-risk groups should be targeted for testing.

“It is a matter of concern that so many individuals in the UK are unaware that they are HIV-infected,” it said.

All the Department of Health could say was that HIV prevention was still a priority.

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6447107.ece

NHS bribes to kick bad habits by nanny state

The NHS is offering iPods, hotel breaks and helicopter trips as incentives to drinkers, smokers and drug users to adopt healthier lifestyles or undergo tests and treatment by the nanny state.

Teenagers who agree to be tested for the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia are being entered in prize draws to win Nintendo Wii games consoles.

Under a pilot scheme run by NHS Fife, smokers who give up cigarettes for three months are entered into a prize draw for a helicopter trip across the River Forth or an overnight stay for two in a luxury hotel. Other gifts on offer include iPods, toiletries and cinema vouchers.

Bexley NHS Care Trust and NHS Lothian have offered smokers who quit cash prizes of up to £500; another authority offers Asda food vouchers worth about £150. In Lanarkshire, recovering alcoholics and drug abusers are offered free passes to leisure centres.

NHS Northamptonshire offers people the chance to win Nintendo Wii games consoles worth about £160 in a monthly prize draw if they agree to be tested for chlamydia. It has also spent about £4,000 on book vouchers for 14 15 year olds who take part in the scheme.

Camden Primary Care Trust in London has spent almost £5,000 on Wiis and iPods for a chlamydia scheme; in Nottinghamshire, participants could win a £1,000 Fujitsu laptop.

The schemes, details of which have been obtained by The Sunday Times under the Freedom of Information Act, have been criticised by politicians and taxpayers’ groups.

They question the efficacy and ethics of using hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money to reward people for giving up vices that they chose to take up in the first place.

“We are extremely sceptical about whether public money should be handed over in this manner,” said Andrew Lansley, shadow health secretary for the Conservatives.

“Incentives should be geared around helping people to live healthier lives, for example by encouraging them to do more exercise, not simply handing over taxpayers’ hard earned money.”

Mark Wallace, campaign director for the TaxPayers’ Alliance, added: “A lot of people would be concerned that this is not what they pay their taxes for. Particularly when a lot of these things people should be doing anyway of their own accord. It’s in people’s own interests to get their health checked out and there are serious questions about the effectiveness of these incentives.”

However, health officials insist that the incentive schemes are cost-effective because they raise awareness and save the NHS money in the long run by preventing disease.

The cost to the NHS of treating smoking related diseases is £3 billion a year. An estimated 1% of women aged 16 to 19 have chlamydia, which can cause infertility. More than 2,000 15-year-olds contracted it in 2008 due to underage, unprotected sex.

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6350486.ece

Health Direct asks when will the insanity stop?

Labour's nanny state rewards those that do wrong then reform. Why don't we try rewarding those that do right in the first place- how about IPods and helicopter trips for kids that are drug free and don't have sexually transmitted diseases?

It's yet another example of how they have created a society that rewards failure.

Over a quarter of people in UK with HIV unaware of it, says HPA

Twenty eight per cent of people living with HIV in the UK are unaware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency has said.

An estimated 77,400 people in the UK are thought to have HIV, up from an estimated 73,000 in 2006.

The agency said there were 7,734 new diagnoses of HIV in 2007 but almost a third of people are being diagnosed late, after the stage at which they should have begun drug therapy for the condition. It said testing needed to be more widely available to reduce transmission rates in the heterosexual and homosexual populations.

"It is very worrying that so many people remain unaware of their HIV status. Wider HIV testing in high prevalence areas of the UK is urgently needed," said HPA Centre for Infections head of HIV surveillance Valerie Delpech.

Prevalence is greatest in London, parts of the south coast, Manchester and Blackpool.

Of new diagnoses in 2007, 41 per cent were among gay men, the majority of whom had become infected in the UK, and 55 per cent were acquired through heterosexual contact. The majority of the latter were probably acquired abroad.

A total of 180 new infections were acquired through injection drug use and 110 through mother to child transmission.

over_a_quarter_of_people_in_uk_with_hiv_unaware_of_it_says_hpa.html

Doctors do not back cervical vaccine choice made by labour ministers

The wrong vaccine against cervical cancer has been chosen by the labour Government and doctors would give their own daughters the alternative jab, a prominent doctor has warned.

GP and broadcaster Dr Phil Hammond, said he and most doctors he has spoken to have opted for Gardasil, rather than Cervarix, for their own children as it also protects against 90 per cent of cases of genital warts as well as cervical cancer.

Writing online in the British Medical Journal, he said the issue has been overlooked because genital warts 'never made it to the front cover' of newspapers, but if it were breast cancer instead there would 'marches on Downing Street' to campaign for the choice of vaccine to be made available on the NHS.

There are two different cervical cancer vaccines on the market, Cervarix and Gardasil, which protect against the human papillomavirus which causes the disease.

The Government has chosen to offer Cervarix as part of a national vaccination programme for all girls aged 11 and 12 with a catch up campaign for older girls.

There are over 100 strains of HPV and Cervarix protects against the two which account for most cases of cancer whereas Gardasil works against an additional two strains so protects against other sexually transmitted conditions as well.

Gardasil remains available but only privately even though most other European countries have chosen it for their own national programmes.

Dr Hammond wrote that with 100,000 new cases of genital warts in England each year and condoms only reducing transmission by up to 50 per cent, the far safer option is to vaccinate with Gardasil.

But, although Gardasil is available privately to parents, at a cost of £350 to £400, most will not be able to afford it, he added.

The vaccine choice could be a false economy because of the estimated cost of treating genital warts is £23m a year and vaccinating with Gardasil would have begun to pay off within three to four years, he said.

According to Hammond, who is a vice-president of the Patients Association, with the current cost of treating genital warts estimated to be £23 million, the government's decision may be a false economy. Within three or four years the use of Gardasil would have begun to have a considerable financial payback.

The NHS offers no information about Gardasil, raising serious questions over patient choice.

The Government's vaccine advisors said that if both vaccines were offered to the NHS at the same price then it would recommend using Gardasil because of the extra protection and because Cervarix, made by Sanofi Pasteur, has been chosen it seems the decision has been made on the basis of cost.

Both vaccines are listed as costing £80.50 in the book of licensed medicines but the details of the discount offered by GlaxoSmithKline to the NHS in order to get the contract, remains 'commerically confidential'.

From:
Doctors-do-not-back-cervical-vaccine-choice-made-by-ministers.html

Nanny state children aged five to get sex education

Children as young as five will be given sex education under labour's nanny state plans to cut teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Pupils will get basic classes in identifying body parts in the first few years of primary school.

In later years, they will be required to have more structured lessons about reproduction and relationships, a major review will recommend.

At secondary level, schools should improve the way issues such as civil partnerships and the importance of marriage are covered.

Teachers will also be given training in delivering lessons amid fears too many are embarrassed to discuss sex in the classroom.

The labour Government has already admitted that sex and relationship education across England is too "patchy".

However, the move will be opposed by family campaigners who accuse ministers of subjecting pupils to controversial issues before they are ready.

To allay concerns, ministers are expected to announce a consultation ahead of the implementation of the lessons on whether or not to give parents an opportunity to withdraw their children.

In a further move, ministers will also announce a radical shake-up of the way children are taught about the dangers of drugs and alcohol.

Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, who has led the review, insisted exposure to sex education before puberty reduced teenage pregnancy rates.

"It is important that we as a society allow better sex and relationship education in both primary and secondary schools without sexualising young people too early," he said. "It is right to share the responsibility between home and school."

At present, all primary and secondary pupils have to learn about the biology of reproduction in science.

In primary schools, pupils should learn about how animals and humans reproduce, but can limit lessons to the biology curriculum.

Schools can also cover the subject in personal, social and health education, although it is not a compulsory part of the National Curriculum.

In secondary schools, teachers must go further, covering issues such as relationships and sexually transmitted diseases. Lessons on civil partnerships and marriage are also offered at secondary level as part of PSHE but they are non-statutory.

Mr Knight said he had received "many strong representations" for making PSHE statutory at all ages to address the problem of poor lessons.

Speaking in the Commons, he said: "The international evidence suggests that teaching aspects of sex and relationship education before puberty has a positive effect on such things as teenage pregnancy rates. Clearly, that has to be done with a high degree of sensitivity and... the involvement of parents, with children reaching puberty at different ages. We must ensure not only that, as a society, we are comfortable with the level of detail and of education that people receive during sex education, but that we are strong on relationship education."

Leading charities including the Sex Education Forum and Brook, the sexual health advice service, which have taken part in the Government review, have already called for lessons to be compulsory in all schools.

It follows the publication of labour Government figures earlier this year showing that the number of abortions in girls under 16 last year rose 10 per cent to 4,376.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said making sex education mandatory would "seriously undermine parents".

New-style lessons on drugs and alcohol lessons will also be overhauled.

Primary school pupils will be given warnings on avoiding medicines and prescription drugs left in the home - as well recognising the difference between soft drinks and alcohol.

Stephen Burgess, national director of Life Education Centres, the health charity, said: "If we want to make a real and lasting difference to teenage drug and alcohol misuse, we must reach them early – at primary school. Then, as they reach adolescence and are most at risk from peer influence, they can make informed decisions based on fact rather than hearsay."

*Health officials were forced to apologise after sending letters to children as young as nine, demanding they are tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

Primary school children were also offered the chance to win an iPod if they attended a clinic for testing. A primary care trust in Harrow blamed an administrative error.

Geraldine Smith, the Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, told the Telegraph: "To start sex education at primary school is to rob young children of their innocence. I know children seem to grow up faster these days but to start formally teaching them about sex education would be quite wrong and would encourage under-age sex. Being exposed to this sort of thing at such an age would put an awful lot of pressure on very young children."

From:
Children-aged-five-to-get-sex-education.html

Harmful mistakes of sex education in school

Judged by its results – sex education has been an utter failure. The increase in sex education here in recent years has coincided with an explosion of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease (STD) far worse than anywhere else in Europe.

Since the labour government’s teenage pregnancy strategy was introduced in 1999, the number of girls having abortions has soared. You might well be tempted to argue that sex education causes sexual delinquency.

Only two months ago the Health Protection Agency reported that a culture of promiscuity among the young had driven the rate of STDs to a record. Almost 400,000 people – half of them under 25 – were newly diagnosed, 6% more than in 2006.

When something fails, the usual procedure is to drop it and try something else. With sex education, the worse it gets, the more people cry out for more of it and earlier.

Labour ministers are considering whether to make schools offer more sex education, offer it earlier and deny parents the right to withdraw their children from it.

Last week the Family Planning Association – now calling itself the fpa, having joined other charities in a mad rush to reduce themselves to a couple of lower-case letters – published a comic-style sex education booklet for six-year-olds to be marketed in primary schools for use in sex and relationships lessons.

It has printed 50,000 copies of Let’s Grow with Nisha and Joe, and tried it out in more than 50 primary schools; it hopes to encourage schools that have shied away from sex lessons to take them on with Nisha and Joe. Oh dear.

It seems to me highly unrealistic (given that 25% of children leave primary school struggling to read and write) to assume that many six-year-olds could begin to read the labels “testicles” or “vagina”.

And it is infuriating, given that medical-style euphemism has triumphed over plain English, that the authors have chosen one that’s wrong. “Vagina” does not mean the external genital organs, commonly referred to as “front bottom”. It comes from the Latin for sheath or scabbard and means what that suggests. The correct word would be “vulva”, but the ill-educated educationists blithely impose inaccuracy on our tiny children. However, that is not what I most object to.

What I object to about the book is what I object to about sex education as a whole (quite apart from its failures). Sex education – particularly compulsory and standardised sex education – is based on mistaken assumptions.

The first is the pervasive assumption of equality – that is, that all six-year-olds or all 11-year-olds or 15-year-olds can discuss the complexities of sex in the same form in the same way. That’s nonsense. Children vary in intelligence and progress. Some young children can easily decipher words such as “urethra”; others may never be able to read them.

More importantly, children and teenagers mature at different ages and come from different backgrounds with different family expectations. You cannot talk the same way to a shy 13-year-old who hasn’t had her first period to another who is well acquainted with the darker recesses of the school bike shed. Some boys are men at 11 and 12, physically; others are children until much later.

Some children’s parents find it acceptable that their sons and daughters are having sex at 13, while others would be shocked: you cannot talk to all these children together. It would puzzle and offend them and might do them serious damage.

And it undermines the authority of those parents who do not share the values of the teacher, or of the majority of the other pupils. It is wrong to assume that people want equality in such matters. They want differences.

Children and families and moral values are not equal, neither within schools nor outside them. They simply aren’t the same.A sensitive teacher will try to make allowances, but there is a shortage in this country of good and sensitive teachers – hence the crisis in education.

Another mistaken assumption is that sex education ought, necessarily, to be entrusted to teachers, given how wildly they vary in ability and in moral attitudes. The thought that the government is considering making sex and relationship education compulsory in schools is terrifying.

From:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article4795056.ece

Statistically speaking, 100% of us are fed up with dodgy data

The majority of 25 to 34-year-olds have sex three to four times a week,” Health Direct reads. There I am, minding my own business on the train and a statistic attacks. Four times a week?

I do some quick desperate calculations in my head. That can’t be right, can it? “For 35 to 44-year-olds, it’s more likely to be twice a week,” the article continues. Well, I’m 33. Which is nearly 35. But still . . . twice a week? Don’t any of these people have kids? Or jobs?

At work I search for a more encouraging statistic. The Durex website comes to the rescue. We, the British, have sex 55 times a year, it says. Even a GCSE mathematician will tell you that’s a snip over once a week.

This must mean that if the 25-44 age group are averaging thrice-weekly how’s-your-father, everyone else must be almost hanky-panky free. But wasn’t there a report out recently that said the over 55s were at it like rabbits? Someone, I conclude, must be lying – and my money’s on the 25 to 34-year-olds.

As of April Fool’s Day, all labour government statistics require a kitemark to show they’ve been approved by the new UK Statistics Authority.

Anything that stops politicians making things up is a good thing, but it still won’t rid society of all the non governmental statistics that hang around making all our lives a misery.

It’s not just sex. Men who eat four meals a day are half as likely to be obese as men who eat three meals a day (Men’s Health); women who give birth in their forties are four times more likely to live to 100 (Grazia); eating sausages daily increases your risk of cancer by 20% (Daily Alarmist, sorry Mail); and my own favourite, women spend as much on make-up as they do on household cleaning products. Honestly, ladies.

At lunch, apropos of nothing, a female colleague storms over and says she was right: she is a better driver than me. “What’s your evidence?” I demand huffily. She tells me about a new survey which shows that men are three times more likely to be convicted of a driving offence than women. “Big wow,” I reply, “but statistically speaking I have hit 100% fewer lampposts than you. Which means I am 100% better.” You see how we need all our statistics kite-marked?

Sex is off which is bad, given the statistics. My mood thickens further when I remember that only one in nine readers gets to the end of the average article. This is below average so what’s the point in finding child-abduction panic button installed at the end of every street so we’re all just that bit more paranoid and overprotective of our kids.

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article3735971.ece

Health Direct reveals a small flaw in labour's plans to restore trust in labour's use of statistics. The new statistics website's name- www.statistics.gov.uk

Sex virus carried by 1 in 10 girls under 16

One in 10 girls under 16, the age of consent, has a sexually transmitted disease that could lead to cervical cancer, a government agency has found.

The Government is considering at what age girls should be vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) amid concern that immunising pre-teens would encourage under-age sex.

Research by the Health Protection Agency found that, from the age of 14, the risk of HPV infection rises sharply. Up to 14, less than five per cent are infected with HPV.

The report said the findings are likely to be an underestimate of infection rates because of problems with the test and the figures should be considered conservative.

There are almost 3,000 new cases of cervical cancer in the UK each year and another study by the agency found that vaccination could prevent 70 per cent of them.

But the vaccines must be administered before infection with HPV and so it is recommended to introduce an immunisation programme for girls from the age of 12.

The agency investigated 1,483 girls from the age of 10 to 29 and results were presented at its conference in Warwick yesterday.

Professor Pat Troop, chief executive of the agency, said: "This study is a valuable addition to our understanding of HPV infection."

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/nvirus120.xml

Cash crisis hits sexual health STD clinics

Sexual health clinics are struggling to hit labour government targets due to a lack of funding. Despite sexual health being one of the Government's top NHS priorities, plans are not always implemented on the ground, a new report claims.

And it said clinics could sometimes only meet targets by changing the way they booked appointments. The report's stark warning echoes one issued last year by the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV (IAG).

That group said a substantial proportion of the £300m set aside for sexual health was being diverted by primary care trusts (PCTs) to pay off debts.

The new survey of sexual health chiefs reinforced the view that cash allocated in the 2004 Choosing Health White Paper was being held back by PCTs or Strategic Health Authorities.

Overall, 59% of respondents said either all or part of the Choosing Health money had been diverted away from sexual health services. The report said: "The diversion of this money will affect delivery of services in key areas of sexual health.

"We ask the Government to take urgent action to ringfence future sexual health funding and enable PCTs to spend allocated money on the services for which it was intended."

Dr Gill Morgan, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents 90% of PCTs, said: "Sexual health services are one of many important priorities for primary care trusts."

From:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1251689,00.html

On Fri 4 Aug 2006 Health Direct posted: Sexual health (STI) funds are being used to cut trust debts when millions of pounds intended for improving sexual health services are being diverted to pay off debts, a government advisory group said yesterday. The Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV said that a substantial part of the £300 million set aside had been absorbed by primary care trusts (PCTs).

And what is the result of labour's postcode lottery- Wed 5 Jul 06- Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI)s increases again in 2005- New figures released today by the Health Protection Agency show that the number of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and other conditions diagnosed in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in the UK increased by 3% between 2004 and 2005.

Chlamydia remains the most commonly diagnosed STI, with 109,832 new cases in 2005, a 5% increase on the previous year. The highest rates of infection and highest increases in diagnoses were seen for both sexes in the 16 to 24 age group.