Save the women, not the men


——————————————————————————–
16 November 2005

Scottish women with breast cancer get to have loads of life saving drugs!

Scottish men with prostate cancer get told to fuck off, you’re not worth the taxes you pay.

A spokeswoman for the SMC – Scottish Medical Consortium – said:

“We would welcome giving the thousands of men in Scotland with prostate cancer, their families and loved ones such an opportunity but SMC have to have the data from the manufacturer to consider.”

Translation: “We don’t really give a fuck about the thousands of men in Scotland with prostate cancer. We might care about their loved ones if their loved ones should happen to be female and…er…the maker of the drug hasn’t proved the cost effectiveness of it, lip-service, lip-service, etc. I dunno, I’m a female government worker, I didn’t get to my position by giving a flying fuck about stupid men! Now you’ll have to excuse me, it’s tit cancer awareness millennium. See ya!”

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:52 PM
——————————————————————————–

At 2:14 AM, rafael699 said…

The same disparity exists in the US and Canada. Middle-aged men are dropping like flies while women live longer and longer. The solution? More programs for women’s health.

Things are now so anti-male that I welcome the Muslims to at least put the relations of the sexes back in balance. Let the invasion begin.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:14 AM, Trescius said…

WTF its the exact same drug in both articles. What the fvck makes it better for women? They already have enough studies that a 30% risk reduction and a 90% survival rate after a 5 year trial are enough to give it to women.

Ahh yes we don’t have vaginas that makes the world of difference in their non difference argument.

——————————————————————————–

At 6:17 AM, TestSubjectXP said…

I hate to sound defeatist, but it’s not so bad. How many men really want to live in this world’s current state of affairs?

——————————————————————————–

At 11:15 AM, Anonymous said…

I read all the above comments. Although they are all different it seemed to me that each was true. It was as though they where like torches, each illuminating the same object but pointing at it from a different direction.

——————————————————————————–

At 12:26 PM, Trescius said…

Fancy way of saying we each have our own point of view on the subject.

——————————————————————————–

At 1:19 PM, Anonymous said…

Not quite. Rather I was trying to say that the truth may not be just one thing. But this is hard to see if all you have is your own opinion.

——————————————————————————–

At 1:14 PM, Anonymous said…

To anonymous above –

If I had an opinion like yours, I would nay air it!

Or try this one – When is an opinion not an opinion? Answer – when it tries to be a self-righteous parable.

Geez! The point is that the bitch couldn’t give a fig about blokes with cancer. That’s outrageous given that men are the greatest contributors to the tax base.

You can shine your torch where you like, but the facts are the facts in darkness or in light.

——————————————————————————–

At 8:35 AM, T4 said…

The problem with facts is that they ain’t truth. Truth demands context. The reason there’s more funding for breast cancer than prostate is simply because the woman issues lobby is making noise while there is no such male equivalent. Both men and women will support women’s issues because it’s politically expedient. I severely doubt there’s a conspiracy here.
——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: