Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
13 February 2007
Life-prolonging Suten will not be offered to advanced cancer sufferers £2000 monthly price tag deemed too costly for NHS Critics say Suten is effective and should be made available
Key quote: "The NHS is saying to [patients], 'Tough luck, there's nothing we can give you'. But that is not the case. If you lived in North America you would get these drugs, but not in Scotland." - Dr Paul Nathan, consultant oncologist
Story in full

PATIENTS with advanced kidney cancer in Scotland are to be denied a drug which could prolong their lives.

The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) yesterday refused to recommend Sutent for use on the NHS, meaning patients who fail on current treatment will have no other drug options.

The decision was criticised by doctors and charities, which said around 300 patients a year in Scotland would benefit from the treatment.

But others said such decisions were necessary in an NHS with limited resources.

Sutent works by stopping the signals in the body that tell cancer cells to grow and multiply. The drug also stops blood vessels growing into the tumour.

The manufacturer, Pfizer, applied for the drug to be approved for use in patients who failed to respond to interferon-alpha.

But the SMC ruled that "the economic case has not been demonstrated".

The drug costs around £2,000 a month, compared to £700-800 for interferon.

Pat Hanlon, from Kidney Cancer UK, said:

"We know the NHS has limited resources, but for patients with kidney cancer there are not many other treatments they can try.

"When they stop responding to interferon, there is nothing else for them."

Paul Nathan, a consultant medical oncologist, said data showed that Sutent doubled the length of time before kidney cancers started growing again.

Dr Nathan said, while it was not a cure, it could extend patients' lives by eight months or more.

A consultant oncologist working in the NHS in Scotland, who asked not to be named, said he understood that the NHS had a limited pot of resources.

"But for my patients, if you are diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer your chances of responding to current treatment are minimal - four out of five will get no benefit," he said.

"Then the NHS is saying to them, 'Tough luck, there's nothing we can give you'.

"But that is not the case. If you lived in North America you would get these drugs, but not in Scotland."

The issue of NHS resources and drugs rationing is set to be discussed tonight in a debate organised by The Policy Institute.

One of the speakers, Dr Andrew Walker, health economics expert at Glasgow University, said organisations such as the SMC were necessary to make treatments fairer, no matter where you live.

But he said that, for individual patients, the decisions could be tough.

"What the SMC has to do is to look at what is good for the population generally, rather than for individual patients.

"If you spend the money in one place you can't spend it elsewhere," he said.

But the economist will also talk about the need to scrutinise other areas of health policy to make sure they represent value for money.

Dr Walker asked: "If you subjected government policy to the same level of scrutiny to which we subject new treatments, would there be some spending areas which could free up resources for use elsewhere, including the drugs bill?"

Dr Anna Gregor, clinical director of the South East Scotland Cancer Network, who will also speak at the debate, added: "There will never be enough money for everything we want in a cash-limited system. There will always be choices.

"What is important is that there is openness in how these decisions are made. In Scotland we have the Scottish Medicines Consortium. This has helped mean that what we are providing is provided consistently."

NEW MEDICINES THAT WON FAVOUR

PATIENTS suffering from rare types of anaemia will benefit from a new drug which has been approved for use on the NHS in Scotland.

The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) recommended Exjade for patients with chronic iron overload linked to treatment for anaemia, which means they have to undergo repeated blood transfusions.

The SMC also accepted the drug Prograf to stop rejection in heart patients who have had a transplant of tissue, cells or a whole organ.

And the drugs body has approved the use of Tachosil - a type of medicated sponge used in surgery. The sponge is used to stop bleeding where other techniques used by doctors have failed.

OBESITY DRUG TURNED DOWN

THE anti-obesity drug Acomplia has been rejected for use on the NHS.

The drug, which costs about £55 for a 28-day treatment, was licensed last summer as the first drug to target factors governing appetite, metabolism and energy use.

Trials have shown that it can reduce weight by a tenth. But the Scottish Medicines Consortium said the economic case had not been demonstrated.

Sanofi-aventis, which makes the drug, said it now plans to submit more evidence to the SMC.

The SMC also rejected the drug Alimta, for non-small cell lung cancer.

It works by blocking enzymes thought to play a role in the rapid growth of these lung tumours.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

13/02/2007 02:22:01

If anyone ever wonders just WHY the NHS costs so much to run and WHY its on its knees......look no further than Big Pharmaceuticals.
They cure absolutely nothing and get funded BILLIONS a year giving false hope at HUGE expense .......but then a cured patient is a customer lost.
The ongoing nonsense that they are JUST around the corner to curing cancer if only they could get just more funding is wearing very thin for most people.
They themselves are the biggest blight in the budgets of most public spending yet few people point the finger at them. If people realised just how much of NHS spending goes to them.....questions would and SHOULD be asked.
You should watch a short movie which is narrated by none other than Dame Judy Dench called we become silent http://www.welltv.com/ well worth the watching

2

Ginster's Pastie,

13/02/2007 02:22:43

Start with the anti-obesity drugs - they're all rubbish, so no problem with that. People hope they can take a drug and still eat crap - nope, disnae work that way. If you can lose the weight to start with, then they can accelerate the loss, that's all.

Re. the anti-cancer drugs, just because a medication doesn't get "SMC approval" (read: 3rd World medicine is ok, but expensive new drugs can wait a few years til the price drops) doesn't mean a doctor can't prescribe it to their patients. Just got to find a consultant with an appropriate lack of regard for these Executive-backed monkeys holding the purse-strings.

Sure as hell I'd prescribe licensed medication for my family if they had no alternative treatment without a moment's hesitation.

3

Mev Brown,

Edinburgh 13/02/2007 02:25:40

I wouldn’t comment on medical issues, but I do know, since Labour took charge of the NHS at Holyrood, beds have been cut by 30% while administrators have increased by 28%.

It is clear were Labours priorities are, and it is not patients.

Watch this space: www.nhsfirst.org.uk

4

Ginster's Pastie,

13/02/2007 02:27:26

Oh aye, amost forgot...

Quote: "What the SMC has to do is to look at what is good for the population generally, rather than for individual patients."

Amusingly a doctor's relationship is with the PATIENT, not society at large. So the SMC can go whistle when the only possibly effective treatment costs an arm and a leg (these medicines are already licenced for use in this country remember).

5

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

13/02/2007 03:11:24

I hope Dame Judi forgives me for misspelling her name.......dam the phone :)

6

Guga,

Rockall 13/02/2007 04:49:37

Whilst I agree with Scott (#1), a lot of the problem is also the NHS structure wherein there are more "administrators" than hospital beds. It is time they sorted out this over-manning of pen-pushers.

In addition to this, it is a sorry state of affairs when they allegedly cannot afford to supply certain drugs to patients, yet the war criminal Bliar has already spent around £7 billion on his illegal war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

I suppose in the long run what it boils down to is what do the people of this country consider more important, their health care, or the self-glorification of a proven liar and war criminal like Bliar?

7

Pete39,

Tassy 13/02/2007 04:54:59

I smoke like a fish and drink like a factory chimney, or something similar. If I catch the final lurgy, I would prefer a pill that terminated rather than preserved my suffering for another few months.

8

Guga,

Rockall 13/02/2007 06:02:28

#7 Pete. I agree with you on that. Pills like that are hard to get, though. The best way is to go to Switzerland or Holland. Either that or a bullet in the brain - though I've been told that if I end up doing that, to do it outside because of the mess.

9

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

13/02/2007 06:17:23

Of course, they could give Laetrile on the NHS at a fraction of the cost ......but then that works and they know it......cant have that can we

10

Media 1,

cape town 13/02/2007 06:35:54

If the drugs are too expensive then blame the pharmaceutical companies.

Prevention makes more money than cure.

I think the NHS offers a tremendous service. For the pittance that we pay into it we really do receive a lot in return. If you feel that you are not receiving enough in return then think about private health care, its the future for all Brits.

11

Anne,

13/02/2007 06:54:42

The problem for pharmaceutical companies is the research and development costs associated with the drugs they produce.
It takes years, and possibly a few false starts, to bring a new drug to the market.
In the meantime, workers still have to be paid - they can't live on air - and premises maintained, drug trials funded and results examined.
Once a new drug is accepted, the firm is off and running to produce another new medication.

12

Anne,

13/02/2007 06:59:13

R&D costs are enormous.
Workers still have to be paid - they can't live on air- premises maintained and drug trials funded while new medicines await a licence.
That's why new medications have a "copyright" to protect the firms which have developed them.

13

Roy,

13/02/2007 07:00:11

Isn't this a bit ironic when read alongside the story about Kelly Taylor? See - 'Dying is my human right, says woman bidding to end her life'

14

Swilly Tisher,

Loch Maree 13/02/2007 07:25:52

Perhaps if Andy Kerr spent a little less on wall repairs....

15

scunnin,

Germany 13/02/2007 07:31:39

I have to agree with #4. Ginster's Pastie, when did we stop thinking about the individual patient? Are we only considering where we can save money? I recognise there is a "limited pot" but there is so much management that has been created in the NHS which money gets wasted on and new computers etc which wastes more money, and hospitals that reduce beds and reduce doctors and and and.... where will it stop? There was an article where a Doctor was flown to Scotland from Italy, drove to sit in as a locum for a week .... The problem we have is "MONEY" and what its spent on.

There are no more waiting lists "according to Labour" there are no more choosing between patients "according to Labour". We had a semi-functional hospital called the Royal Infirmary. There are fewer and fewer cardiologists, neurologist etc. I am glad I dont live in Scotland anymore if this is the treatment you get...

16

jim lad,

the capital 13/02/2007 07:47:36

As a cancer sufferer let me explain what effect stories like this has on the patient.First we are all aware there is no cure,how we get by day to day is the hope that just around the corner,perhaps tomorrow there will be a cure for some not for all, but in the meantime if they they don't allow us the drugs that can keep us in the frame for a breakthrough then we feel helpless.As you are all aware, there is so many forms of the big C it isn't a one size fits all but the development must be allowed to go on and politics let me assure you from a patients does not get spoken about.The SMC says an economic case has not been established,if they only knew the hurt remarks like that caused,so here's looking forward to tomorow we never know might be our day at last.

17

scunnin,

Germany 13/02/2007 07:49:14

Thankyou Jim lad #1 for putting it in perspective. Patients with caner are not just numbers .. they are people!

18

Scaramouche,

13/02/2007 08:05:06

So what happened to all the money New Labour says it has thrown at the NHS since it came to power in '97, if not in patient care???

Yeah, I know we need more doctors and nurses.
Yeah I know the need to have cleaner hospitals.
Yeah, I know we have to keep records.

It's time for a look at the books and see EXACTLY how much has gone into MEDICINE though! There's far too much of this "The NHS can't afford to treat you" stories in the news.

What's going on?? Is my postcode really a factor if I get a serious illness like cancer? I have angina, where do I stand??

19

jim lad,

the capital 13/02/2007 08:10:59

Can i just add that in no way did i mean any critisism to any one posting a political view or a humourous view,we have to laugh or we would end up crying. Apologies if any is needed.

20

jim lad,

the capital 13/02/2007 08:19:46

#18 you got it correct thats the kind of discussions we have in therapy and know what ,even the Oncology nurses don't have answers,they are the ones who are REALLY keeping us going and i have seen them in a lot of distress and that angers me though i'm not supposed to get upset.Sorry for rambling on Mork to Mindy signing off.

21

paulr,

13/02/2007 08:22:38

If you lived in North America you would get these drugs, but not in Scotland...... but only if you can pay for them

The NHS has a limited budget which is constantly being eaten away at by the greed of durg companies and their shareholders, remember companies like pfizer have only one goal, PROFIT.

22

eric,

Lothian 13/02/2007 08:25:04

I knew the NHS was bad But just didnt know how bad,When my mum was going in and out of Hospital with cancer,There was total chaos ,No one knows what the other is doing and periods of days laying in bed seeing no one but irritable nurses who are very unhelpful, because they cant get hold of consultants,(probably over in the private hospital Bit busy maybe),
I eventually took mum home to die ,She settled down more,its BAD ,Cant blame all the staff, a lot of them are dedicated people But very frustrated as well ,Im changing my vote from labour to SNP ,Giving someone else a chance,

23

jim lad,

the capital 13/02/2007 08:35:49

#21 paur take your point but the sad truth is development=profit=availability.I see it as a win win situation.Sad state of affairs though.

24

jim lad,

the capital 13/02/2007 08:39:43

#22 eric that sounds horrific, sorry your Mum had to endure that,it makes me feel very lucky as i have nothing but excellence from my hospital.

25

eric,

Lothian 13/02/2007 08:47:10

24 Thank s Jim ,Im glad to hear you had no problems ,I have never seen such a mess Its like a feild hospital senario.Even the after care package didnt arrive for my mum ,The nurses or the big chair comod to name but a few things,I had to buy the chair comode etc.Not that this was a problem But mum worked all her life and paid taxes ,The chair was £350 not to mention the rest,id have spent more But had to go into dept to do this,
I really hope something is done quickly ,No one should go through that at the end of their life,My family felt very abandoned and let down,

26

Liberal Nature,

13/02/2007 09:07:52

Perhaps I am being cynical when I think that the drugs that have been approved will be used to treat a small number of patients. For example, Prograf stops rejection in heart transplants. How many heart transplants occur each year? Thus, Prograf appears to be a PR exercise.

This approval process is merely the rationing of funds for treatments rather than the rationing of treatments themselves. It might be a subtle difference, but it is still rationing of resources.

27

,

13/02/2007 09:09:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 365407, Article id was mapped to record!
28

jim lad,

the capital 13/02/2007 09:12:28

#25 eric wow should never happen.It also shows how tramatic it is on family and friends.My thoughts are with you good luck in the future

29

eric,

Lothian 13/02/2007 09:14:58

27 ,28.Thanks Guys,

30

Duncan,

out of hospital 13/02/2007 09:32:47

#3. Agree with you 100%. the NHS is awash with mangers and advisors, all hiding behind their desk tops, instead of on their toes among the patients and staff. The Open University are doing superb work on these issues with Gerry Robinson, the last programme I saw was very good, here is his take:

What immediately struck you as being wrong at the hosptial?

I think one of the things which is clearly not right and isn’t acceptable is the fact that this sense that we have that the NHS doesn’t have enough facilities is just wrong. Theatres, which are often the absolute key to waiting lists because most waiting lists are to do with elective surgery, things like knees and hips and eyes and, those kind of simple repetitive surgeries that are not life threatening, those are the things that waiting lists are made of, and all of those depend on a good throughput through the theatre. And there we were with a lot of spare capacity in theatre. And it’s a bit like having a hotel of 800 rooms and having 400 of them simply not being used because you just can’t quite get around to planning it, it’s all a bit difficult, and it’s difficult to get everybody in and get the chambermaids in and to make things happen. It really is like that.And if you think about that in a hotel, how extraordinarily stupid that is, but that’s exactly what was happening here. Doctors had their ways, and they didn’t always want the theatre on Friday afternoons, and nobody really wanted to do Friday afternoons, quite extraordinary. And getting, just coming in from outside calmly and coolly saying “hey, God, what the devil is going on here?”, because if you think about how little cost it would take to gear up that existing capacity, and what that would mean in terms of delivery of procedures that would reduce the waiting lists rapidly, it’s extraordinary. It’s extraordinary that it doesn’t happen, but it doesn’t.


See more here:
Report Unsuitable

31

Dougie, Edinburgh,

13/02/2007 09:47:32

Anyone in the world with AIDS or tuberculosis can arrive at an airport and demand treatment. Nobody should be surprised the NHS is under strain.

32

.,

13/02/2007 10:01:42

The NHS isn't awash with managers, contrary to the ill-informed opinions on here. There have been numerous studies that when compared to other large, complex organisations there are significantly less managers.

The point about AIDS and TB is irrelevant, they are conditions that can be passed on and therefore treatment is a public health issue. Cancer isn't an infectious disease and therefore poses less of a threat to the general populace.

The NHS has £1600 per person to treat patients across the country, on that basis £16,000 for 8 months just doesn't fit.
If you want to compare to North America, compare the costs too. You wouldn't walk up to a hospital in America and get given £2k per month's worth of drugs free of charge. You'd either have to pay yourself, or have appropriate insurance. If you're in the same boat here then you'd get the drugs.
Nobody is stopping people from paying for these drugs themselves.

33

Resident,

East Lothian 13/02/2007 10:04:34

#10 in Capetown - this is not your business. If you are an Ex-pat Brit, it makes me wonder why you are there - if you are not, you do not know what you are talking about. We PAY for our NHS with our National Insurance payments deducted from salaries and with our taxes. What right have you to tell us that private healthcare is the future for all Brits - "If you feel that you are not receiving enough in return then think about private health care, its the future for all Brits." Private health care is not an option for most of us. I suggest that you stick to where you know and what you know in Capetown!

I have been in and out of hospitals all my life and have always had good care. I do have to say that, since I came to Scotland from South of the Border, I have had the most excellent care and treatment (although I did contract MRSA). The main reason I will not return to England is that my healthcare is better up here than it would be in England. My daughter-in-law has come out of working in the NHS in England because she was so appalled at what was being done in the hospitals there, even though she is a qualified medic. All the members of my family agree that I should stay up here where I will be well looked after with a good GP and surgeons.

We are very lucky with our GP practices in East Lothian - excellent. If we had more Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses and Healthcare workers instead of all these administrators - we would not have to import locums from other countries.

The problem with the money is -

1) Too many highly-paid Chief Executives and Administrators who seem to spend their time walking about the hospitals and interfering with Ward routines (many of them have no Healthcare qualifications anyway)

2) Too much money spent in the wrong places and on the wrong things - i.e. wars, weaponry and Tridents and nuclear power stations.

I am so sorry to hear about some of the horrendous stories which have appeared in some of the

34

SS,

13/02/2007 10:07:21

A few facts;
- It costs close to $1bn to discover, research, develop, manufacture and licence a new medicine for the market
- For every 1 that makes it, approximately 1000 fail - some of these will have had up to $500m spent on them, only for them to fail and never be seen again.
The pharmaceutical industry is built on the rather basic risk vrs reward principal. Drug development is extremely high risk. These businesses therefore need some kind of incentive to carry out research in risky areas - just like any other business would.
Also worth thinking about just how many lives have been saved and extended with the advent of modern medicine - antibiotics, aspirin, warfarin, paracetamol, blood pressure medication, cholesterol medication, the list is rather long.

35

Sly,

13/02/2007 10:16:31

The fact is the NHS has finite resources. Where there are finite resources hard decisions and choices have to be made. Of course someone with a specific illness wants any drug which may make them better. However if that drug has not been able to demonstrate that the benefit it gives is cost effective, then in purely financial terms it is not a good use of money. Even writing that sounds horrid, however that is exactly the type of decision that the NHS has to take every day- Yes we can give to Peter, but that means we have to take away from 10 Pauls! - As for drug companies, yes they are in the game for profit, but just ask yourself where we'd be without them. Dont kid yourself that the state would develop many new medicines as it now costs £0.6billion just to bring a drug to market.That's before a penny is made on selling them! On top of this actual NHS spend on pharmaceuticals as a percentage of total NHS spend is minute! The general mismanagement of NHS funds throughout the whole system seems to me to be the real issue.

36

Robin,

13/02/2007 10:50:49

(33)
I agree that the GP practices in East Lothian are good, and so they should be at what they cost.
Take Haddington for example there are 3 practices employing an average of 5 doctors each (i.e. min 15 doctors) plus several nurses, physiotherapists and about 10 admin staff.
Try and get a doctor at night ior weekend, - yes you will but not from Haddington practices, - from outwith the town with no knowledge or access to your specific records.
Not so many years ago Haddington had 3 doctors, with no nurses, physios etc, just 3 totally DEDICATED doctors.
Say nae mair.

37

Koffindodger,

13/02/2007 10:59:42

34 SS

Good point, but your argument seems to suggest that if a drug is not going to deliver a potentially big payday for the pharmaceutical companies its not worth developing.

By this I mean drugs that have a "use once and you're cured" property.

So basically you are saying there is no incentive to actually cure cancer, heart disease, arthritis, mental illness etc etc, but there is massive financial incentives to develop drugs that need to be taken for decades by millions of people, like statins, viagra , vioxx(!)and ssri's.

If the hypocratic oath is "do no harm" perhaps the pharmaceutical industries oath should be "keep them alive, but don't fix them" or "a healthy person is as much use to us as a dead person" (i.e can't sell them any pills).

38

jim lad,

the capital 13/02/2007 11:06:29

#35 Sly don't feel your input sounds horrid,its just that when you are in the front line perceptions change as i am sure you will understand.Your comments and others like yours are welcome as an honest and open debate is healthy,and where would we be if opinions were stifled.I don't have to agree with others opinions but i most certainly respect each and every one and i have taken no offence by your input.All the best chum

39

TheGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 13/02/2007 11:17:10

Everything has a price. There are people in third world countries dying for the sake of vaccinations costing 20p per shot.
£2000 per head per month is just too much to simply prolong the inevitable....

40

Fortunado,

13/02/2007 11:47:31

May be one solution could be having private insurance that is tax deductible ; so that one could opt out of NHS and into the other option without being financially ruined or pay twice for one service. But I don’t know whether the law allows this in the UK.

41

Allan P,

Stirling 13/02/2007 11:53:46

For 4. and 15, if you have time, find "Fairness as a problem of love and the heart: a clinician's perspective on priority setting" by Jim Sabin psychiatrist and ethicist from Boston - on the BMJ (British Medical Journal) website - issue 1998;317:1002-4. These are tough decisions but someone has to make them.
Andrew Walker is right, subjecting other areas of government expenditure to the same level of scrutiny would produce some interesting findings.

42

Swilly Tisher,

Loch Maree 13/02/2007 11:53:49

Dear Mr North Bridge Censor ,

I think I'm entitled to an explanation for the removal of comment #27 which was a tribute to Eric's (#29) Mum with some inoffensive political spin added for good measure.

I do hope New Labour haven't had a hand in this.

43

Nellie,

Liverpool 13/02/2007 12:04:53

Look at the cost ... around 300 patients a year @ £2,000 per month for at least 8 months of prolonged life. Let's be generous and assume they live for a full year ... That's £7.2m. Set that against the cost of maintaining Trident, the war in Afghanistan or ... the NHS budget for art!

44

PIC,

home, waiting for the snow 13/02/2007 12:08:05

You cannot put a price on human life. If you are not directly affected by cancer, it is very easy to make statements about prolonging the inevitable but if you are on the front lines of the battle for survival your opinions change - dramatically.
Also, here in the states the drug companies have to go through an exhausting process to get drugs approved for use therefore adding $$$$ to the cost once they are approved.

45

it has always been allan,

13/02/2007 12:18:41

I have had cancer and a good surgeon cured it.

when it comes it is just like any other possible death, painfull and most unfortunate.
It is just another way to go. But the name is frightening, because nobody can be immune, by what ever lifestyle, even the fittest.

I do not right away see what would be the point of struggling on for a few more months of pain and disappointment.

46

G,

dundy 13/02/2007 12:26:04

Could all those castigating the decision makers, the government and the NHS tell what services they would cut to allow this drug to be available to all on the NHS?

These decisions ahve to be made and I think the system for making them is about as fair as it can be.

47

scunnin,

Germany 13/02/2007 12:32:17

I dont wish anyone to ever be sick from cancer, but lets say that gordon Brown or any other MP's family members ends up with cancer and requires this drug, there would be "no sorry we cant afford it" it would be "of course you can have it". The people on the street or living in our neighbourhoods have earnt the right to a good medical service, to a doctor who has time and is not overworked, who can perscribe the drugs required maybe to allow that person to live long enough either for a transplant or for chemo to have an effect...

48

Cheryl here,

Scotland 13/02/2007 12:34:47

So, what exactly is the correct "price" or monetary value on a life?

Many of my female relations on both sides of my family have had cancer in it's different forms. Unforunately, it hasn't skipped a generation. We don't know why this happens...just genetically predisposed, I guess. My mother had ovarian cancer last year. I'm next in line, I guess. So....should I start booking my flight to North America now?

49

Benlomond,

Loch Lomond 13/02/2007 12:35:32

Getting cancer is something that’s never going to happen to you so it’s very easy to take the narrow minded views shown above.
What you don’t see is the very large number of young and healthy people that have picked up this disease through no fault of their own.
I feel that the NHS and government should get the drug companies to drive the cost of medicines and cures down rather than just disbanding them and killing off patients.

50

The laird.,

leadhills 13/02/2007 12:51:18

I wonder If the unionist press would posibly consider exposing there parties track record on all the failures that are consistantly on going, Its obviously the case that you cannot prepare budget,s for nuclear power programs, trident upgrading and run wars all over the place, In the pretence of protecting the nation, and in the other hand having insuficient funding to supply live saving drugs for our people that are termally ILL. The cost of running the NHS is soaring because there are to many fat cat,s onboard ceaming funding with little left for real patient care. This country has gone to the wall over the past 50 yrs, between old tories and new tories I mean labour When is the country going to wake up and see the two party state for the past number of yrs is not working and give someone else a chance. Lets do the same thing to labour at the may election 2007 as scotland did to the tories during 1997 election, this would give the power back to the people, who are the sovergnty of the country and not the tinpot so called democricy thats the laughing stock of the world.

51

hmds,

13/02/2007 13:11:38

As a person who works in Cancer Care, I am so happy to read a comment like #1, and so very saddened to read a comment like #22, both of which are spot on. Other comments about the NHS and money squandering are all quite true.

There are many potential solutions to all of these problems, but the determination and vote of any first-term idealistic politician is soon bought and paid for by those who stand to profit from the status quo, and so we're left to work with what little we are given. Electing the SNP shan't solve the problem, because a change of skin doesn't turn a wolf into a sheep. Remember when we all thought Tony Blair would revolutionise politics in the UK? Political party names are nothing more than meaningless labels anymore. It's all corruption and lies.

I recently spent a lot of time and research delving into the history of the United Kingdom and Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries: wealthy royal families sending off young peasant boys by the scores to fight imperialistic wars, with absolutely nothing in exchange for the death and destruction they created; in fact, the spoils went entirely to the wealthy. I'd often despaired at the execution of the Romanov's, and although I can never condone the killing of anyone, I do understand it: the working class had been pushed past its breaking point and could suffer no longer. Sadly, the working class continues to be exploited by the very leaders of the revolution, who continue to lie and promise them a better future.

As George Orwell pointed out in his novel, Animal Farm, the overthrow of the Royal Families of Europe was replaced by leaders and governments who soon behaved no differently; in truth, the leaders of the revolution were seeking simple people to do their dirty work, so that they could reap the spoils. They were no different from mafia bosses. Mr. Orwell was a wise man, albeit perhaps a little pessimistic for my tastes.

Today, do not our own politici

52

ARW at work,

Glasgow 13/02/2007 13:26:28

I'm the economist quoted in the aritcle - thanks to everyone who's contributed, The Scotsman website is the losest thing we have to a debate about health policy at the moment.
Several people said, "If you (or Gordon Brown) were the patient you'd want treatment ..." and I agree with them, I would want the drug. But I could say that of every single new proposal to spend NHS money and if we approved them all, we'd be in deficit by the end of the year.
Other people have said we should take money from other areas (like war in Iraq) - unfortunately, the NHS doesn't have that power - if that's what you believe lobby your MP.
Somebody asked what is the price of life - NICE in England first proposed that around £30,000 for a year of good quality life was the upper limit of what the NHS could afford, although they recognised there would have to be exceptions to this. There has to be SOME limit or again, the budget would run out very quickly.
Final point: SMC decisions are not based just on cost - the same SMC supported Herceptin for brest cancer and that cost more. The difference is that Herceptin is likely to save lives so the health beenfit is greater.

53

Duncan,

out of hospital 13/02/2007 13:32:50

#32. NHS MANAGER.

One manager for every bed available. Not awash with managers, who are you kidding. We were given a promise that we would have 600 more consultants by last year by Lying Nu Lib/Labour. Ha Ha only kidding, we never meant that to be taken seriously.
Monklands is loosing it's A&E services. If we stripped out managers and there assistants until we had the funding to keep Monklands open would that not be better for patient care?
I spent some time in hospital last year. I won't say where as a complaint is being processed. I had major surgery and I was very afraid. The wall beside my bed was thick with dirt, I wrote my initials in it, I bet they are still there. The curtains on the window were hanging in bits and thick with dirt. The walls in the toilets and showers were thick with dirt. The food I would not have given to my dog. I signed my self out as soon as I could walk.
The cleaning person, one, was a joke as she worked like a snail and spent half her time gabbing. No manager was ever seen checking her useless efforts. I would consider doing my own surgery before going back there.
The ratio of managers to clinicians is out of order, and you know it.

54

Erse,

Middle East 13/02/2007 13:43:24

#11, 12, 34, 35, 37 & 52.

Yes developing new drugs is very expensive and yes the employees have to make a decent living but Glaxo the largest drug company in Europe posted pre-tax profits of nearly £7bn in 2005 and that is expected to increase for 2006 when they finalise the figures. £7bn - you could fund a small war for years in some far flung hell hole in the Middle East for that or you could try not to be so greedy and invest some of that money into new research and lowering the cost of existing drugs.

55

Doooogie,

Ingerland 13/02/2007 13:45:35

Place this story side-by-side with the one regarding the wretched 30-year-old woman who wants her own incurable suffering to end now and not after what will be for her an increasing and unwanted period of abject pain and no-life existence.

What do you see, in terms of patient-care and selective expenditure?

56

eric,

13/02/2007 13:46:45

42 yes i cant understand why your comment was removed ,Your comment was very comforting to me to know that there are still folk who
care ,Thanks again for your kind words,
53 You do a fine job like most folk in the NHS ,And i take my hat off to you all.The feeling we as a family got, was Abandonment ,The home care package we were promised didnt happen,The 1st contact we got by letter was 10weeks later 2 days after mum died a letter from the nurses for the care package,We We asked nicely waited patiently waited shouted screamed ,Even mums doctor was shocked he didnt get response,And the cost in that 10 weeks for us was a lot of dept ,Not that the money matters,But Its over with now ,I dont have any grudges no point,

57

ARW at work,

Glasgow 13/02/2007 14:00:16

Reply to #56
And Pfizer (who make this medicine) probably make more profit than Glaxo. The Scottish Medicines Consortium look at the balance between cost and benefit. The benefit to the patient is determined by what happened in the clinical trials. The main determinant of the cost is the price the company chooses to set for the product. If the value for money is poor, should it be the SMC who get the blame?

58

Billy,

Germany 13/02/2007 14:02:35

If we stopped providing ceaserian births to the "Am no pushin, it's too sare" brigade , we may have enough money to spend on genuinely ill patients, like cancer victims . And that goes for the anti obesity drug that was thankfully removed from the availability list.

59

Mike J,

US 13/02/2007 14:04:05

Note this quote from the beginning of this article:

"The NHS is saying to [patients], 'Tough luck, there's nothing we can give you'. But that is not the case. If you lived in North America you would get these drugs, but not in Scotland."

That's absolutely true. But it's not because we in North America have more rights than you in Scotland or because we're somehow better or more deserving. It's because we have a FREE MARKET HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. It's because the government doesn't control our health care, which means they don't get to tell us what medicines we can and cannot have.

Government is by nature slow, expensive, inefficient, and unproductive. They have to incentive to be otherwise. Nobody is government loses their job if they don't produce or if things get too expensive. They just raise your taxes. You guys have suffered under the NHS long enough. I know it sound comforting to think that "the government will provide everybody with health care," but as you can see from this very article, that's simply not the case. Far better to have choice and options than some governmental monolith telling you what you can and cannot have.

The frightening thing is that despite all the evidence of the absurdity of government-sponsored health care, it looks like the U.S. is inching in that direction as well...

60

ARW at work,

Glasgow 13/02/2007 14:12:00

#61 And what proportion of people in America have the insurance to be able to afford sunitinib at $50,000 per year? A half the population? Less?

61

matthew c,

13/02/2007 14:14:01

Its all relative once again we can spend 5000million on the war in Iraq but cant afford live saving drugs.It a question we should ask of the Blair government..?

62

Erse,

Middle East 13/02/2007 14:14:56

#56

The drug may be a cure but it could ease pain and suffering and help towards a more dignified death. Would SMC deny that to somebody because the value for money for one particular drug is poor? Do they care that the value of life for the patient is poorer?

I am in a lucky position that my employer provides free private healthcare but what about people who have worked and paid their national insurance for years thinking that if they become sick the NHS will look after them and provide the best care possible?

63

Supe,

13/02/2007 14:15:22

The cost of national healthcare is very high, and not efficient. I appreciate the compassion of providing equal healthcare to everyone, but there is a grave lack of incentive for those in the industry to improve.

Unlike #54, ARW at Work, I am not an economist, so my opinion doesn't mean much..., but it seems likely to me that where there is mostly private healthcare and national healthcare on a more limited basis, the competition to have the greater surviaval rates may actually drive them.

The unfortunate side-effect is that healthcare becomes a major expense for most people, and those covered by national healthcare guidelines may occasionally be forced into lesser quality providers.

For all the political outcry in favor of it,there is a huge segment of the United States that is terrified of the prospect. Perhaps the United Kingdom manages their government better, but in the US, anything the government touches turns into a charlie foxtrot. (that would be a real mess for the uninitiated)

I can't imagine what the answer would be, but I know the cost of healthcare is very high, no matter how hard we may try to control it. Litigation and the high cost of research and development makes it impossible to maintain any level of advancing quality if the cost is heavily supressed. Great scientific minds will simply follow another course, where the ability to grow economically has not been so stifled.

Apologizing in advance for many typos.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7380/72

64

ARW at work,

Glasgow 13/02/2007 14:21:28

#64 I'm guessing your comment was directed at me. Absolutely the Scottish Medicines Consortium would look at easing pain and suffering in palliative and terminal care. But a pharmaceutical company can't charge whatever it likes for that type of benefit. In this case we felt the balance was wrong - if we spend the money on this medicine we have less to spend on other palliative care services an djudging from some of the comments from others they need some investment.

65

scunnin,

Germany 13/02/2007 14:48:34

#62 i have to agree with you. In #61 The US system also requires that a person pay alot of money for insurance up to $600-$700 per month if they are not working in industry they have medicare possibilities which is close to the NHS but it barely covers anything so I think even Northern America doesnt have anymore than we do in the UK.

I realise we have a limited budget on things (like any business) but it seems that we are contributing to the NHS, shouldnt it be justified to the people where the money is going and why we have to wait 6 months for a scan in the UK? Or why we have to watch a relative pass away as we live in the wrong postcode that we are not allowed certain drugs etc People want to understand and of course get frustrated if money doesnt get spread around.

I also agree that we cannot take money from different areas, but we seem to tax alot on cigarettes and petrol, why not take a few pence from each litre, maybe we can actually be successful in having enough money to cover drugs that are needed...

66

rayjan,

england 13/02/2007 14:56:35

Selective treatment based on cost has been going on in England for sometime now . Drugs have been available in Scotland but not in England...how can this be a"National" health service.
I have no faith in this government ,politicians generally,be sure if they were ill or amember of their family treatment would be available ,however it is likely that we would not hear about it.

67

.,

13/02/2007 14:58:20

#55, I don't think cleaners, medical records staff etc consider themselves "managers", which would appear to be the statistic you're quoting.

Did you complain at the time about the state of the ward? I'm willing to bet not. You're the sort of person that'll go to a restaurant, eat the whole meal then complain it wasn't up to your standards and try to get out of paying. The same is lying quiet in a hospital bed then trying to bleed the system dry with a compensation claim.
You don't appear to have suffered ill effects as a result of this stay, and I'd wager that this "rubbish" NHS has made you better.

You evidently view me as an insider, which would suggest I've got a better knowledge of the system than yourself. I don't think shifting ward clerical work to admin staff from nurses turns the NHS into an overmanaged organisation, and you could argue that a major contributing factor is the new consultant's contract where the senior medical staff received a massive hike in pay to work less hours. Maybe this contributes to the lack of clinicians?

If I was in the position of being refused this treatment I'd cite the example of haemophiliacs, those in receipt of herceptin and the recent case in Glasgow where a young girl was awarded enzyme treatment of the order of £100k a year and invoke the ECHR to force treatment.

I'm not, but it's nice to be corrected by people who know far less about how money works in the health service than myself.

68

ARW at work,

Glasgow 13/02/2007 15:13:45

#58 You're right, Rayjan, England has a separate system called NICE - but this is what devolution is all about. NICE give guidance to England, SMC give guidance to Scotland. It's possible for the two to come to a different decision because the evidence is a long way short of conclusive - often we only have a six-month clinical trial when the patient would be on treatment for life, so what do we assume happens in month seven, month eight, etc?

69

Duncan,

out of hospital alive 13/02/2007 15:37:07

#69. NO NAME NOT EVEN AN INITIAL! SUCH BRAVERY.

No I mean managers.

Your sarcastic assumptions are just wrong, you are willing to bet are you, well you would loose. I don't know what you are, nor indeed do I care, but your snide remarks and sarcasm have the mark of a self serving bureaucrat looking after number one.
Nurses have no time to look after patients due to short staffing and overburden of clerical work so that is plainly not working. How many times do we hear about geriatric patients being left to starve with food been dumped in front of them and no one to feed them.
A clue to your motivation is the remark about consultants pay. touch of envy there is it? I would rather see a consultant earning £150000 pr.year than another bureaucrat driving a desk. Others share that view:

"Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, said: "With 100,000 more administrators in the NHS than in 1997, it is no wonder that NHS finances are out of control.

"This is the management of a madhouse government. Thousands more administrators are being recruited while doctors and nurses are being sacked across the country."

Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: "Whilst the number of doctors and nurses has increased, the number of managers has risen nearly twice as fast.

"The NHS is having to divert money from employing frontline staff to paying a whole army of managers to respond to endless government initiatives and reforms. "

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7057/575/a

70

Flakey,

13/02/2007 15:57:18

The government fund these drugs, then the drug companies price them too high for us to use, where is the logic. But their business and profits are more important than lives it seems

71

Mike J,

US 13/02/2007 16:01:34

#62, I just love your mindset. It's always the big, bad drug companies (or oil companies, or chemical companies), isn't it?

Let's remember that a private company has a right to charge whatever it wants for its product. The reason these drug companies can charge these outrageous prices is because nobody pays for their own medicine anymore.

If medications were on a self-pay basis, how many people could afford this drug? Almost nobody, even those who are quite well off. Then what would these big drug companies do? Just keep the price high and price themselves right out of business?

Of course now. They'd lower the price so that the vast majority of people could afford the drug. That's the only way they could make money and stay in business.

But today those who pay for these drugs are insurance companies if you're in the U.S., or the government in most of the rest of the world. And these two groups have LOADS of money to spend, so the drug companies take advantage of that and charge outrageous prices.

But that doesn't make them evil, terrible, greedy entities. They're doing what all corporations (and individuals) do: they're maximizing their income.

We all do it, and there's nothing wrong with it. If you owned a flat to let, and you could let it out for 100 Pounds a month to a poor family or 10,000 Pounds a month to a rich family, you know which you'd choose. But if the government quit letting flats and you only had poor families to let to, you'd lower to price to 100 Pounds and let it for what you could get. If you kept the price at 10,000 Pounds, nobody would let and you'd lose your income.

(And there's no need to point out that needed drugs are different from flats. No they're not. It's supply and demand, buying and selling. The same principles apply whether we're talking drugs or flats or anything else. The socialist wingnuts have just so muddied the issue that we don't recognize it anymore.)

So let's

72

Flakey,

13/02/2007 16:07:14

that's ok then, let the little people die, as long as the Free market keeps going. When we have all died because the drugs were too expensive, they'll have no business left.

73

Sedov,

Scotland 13/02/2007 16:10:14

How is it we can always find money for wars but not life saving treatment? Lets get rid of the system that creates this kind of madness.

74

Mike J,

US 13/02/2007 16:16:03

#67 scunnin...unfortunately, you seem to be getting your info from the same left-wing socialist media outlets as ARW.

The big difference in the U.S. is that we have CHOICE, and choice makes all the difference. Insurers, knowing that their customers have choice and can go to another insurer, must try to deliver a better quality product at a lower price than the competition in order to survive. So there is a huge incentive to provide a quality produce at a reasonable price.

Medicare is an entirely different issue. Medicare is government-sponsored health insurance for the elderly, and it's in as much trouble as the NHS, and for the same reason: because it's run by the government, there is no incentive to provide a top-quality product for a reasonable price. If they run out of money they can just raise taxes. That's no incentive to be efficient or cost-conscious.

So many seem to have forgotten the concept of incentive and how it drives human behavior. In private industry and open competition, the incentive is to provide a quality product at a low price; that makes things better for everybody. In the public sector, there is no such incentive, and thus no drive to keep prices down and quality high.

I can't tell you how many televised NHS discussions I've watched in the UK where the moderators have said, "We've doubled (or tripled, or more) the money we're pouring into the NHS, and we're not seeing any better quality coming out of it. Why not?"

And I always want to scream into the TV screen, "Because there's no INCENTIVE to deliver better quality! In fact, there's a disincentive. As long as the quality stays low, you'll keep pouring more and more money into it, you fools!"

But too many (both on the political right and left, but mostly on the left), only see the world the way it SHOULD work, instead of the way it really does work.

75

eric,

Lothian 13/02/2007 16:17:40

£500M on trams Tut tut

76

Mike J,

US 13/02/2007 16:25:31

#74 There's socialist thinking at its best. The drug companies will price their drugs so high that nobody can afford them so that everybody will die. THAT'S good business thinking, isn't it? Let's price our products so high that nobody buys them. And exactly how long will we then stay in business? Let's come back to earth. The socialists want us to think in these terms:

Government = good
Business = bad

That's simply not the case. It's business that creates jobs, creates wealth, creates LIVE-SAVING DRUGS, not the government. Too many times, government stands in the way of the good that capitalism and free markets can bring about. Compare any capitalist system to any communist system, and show me where socialism has ever provided a better quality of life or standard of living. I'll wait...

#75 I submit to you that health care is far better in free countries that in countries lacking freedom--say, China or North Korea or the former Soviet Union. The problem is, freedom comes at a price, because there are a LOT of people out there who would just love to take our freedom from us. Have you seen the polls recently showing the percentage of Muslin youth in Britain who want to see Sharia law become the law of the land in the U.K.? It should scare the socks off you. Unfortunately, freedom must be defended, and sometimes that means war. If we allow the Islamic fascists to gain the kind of power Hitler was able to put together because nobody would listen to Churchill, I guarantee that there will be a lot less money available for health care and a lot more people dying in wars.

77

siusaidh,

13/02/2007 16:27:24

Has anyone thought of treating themselves naturally?
Keeping the body alkalime will have a great effect to help in beating cancer.....this means in eating fruit and veg. , no meat products, as they are very acidicy.
Also using pure therapeutic essential oils has helped cancer patients to be treated, as well as using alternative therapies.
Whether it's about time to get those on the NHS could be debated, but natural ways should always be explored first.
Most pharmacyatical products are packed one way or another with petro chemicals, which only hinder the healing process.

78

Prinzowhales,

North Carolina 13/02/2007 16:33:31

I am opposed to a national health plan that taxes everyone for the sake of Big Pharmacy and people who abuse their bodies with poor nutrition, poor life choices and little or no exercise.

There are some popular meds in America that have a mark of several hundred thousand percent. There are meds being prescribed that are inferior to placebos and and natural remedies. And, there are the cancer rackets that call a five year survival a cure.

I've never used a health care plan outside of the military and, God willing, never will, and it is absolutely appalling to have to spend the extra dollar to eat properly and then see the health system abused by neurasthenics, food-aholics, sugar adicts and exersize and sun-o-phobes.

This tyranny of the sickly and twisted over national health priorities must end! It is well past time that proper nutrition and other health-directed practices be emphasized in preventive medicine. I understand that the Chinese method was to hire a physician and pay him only as long as he kept you well.

In America there is no reward in the system for being well and staying that way--instead, everyone's insurance goes up every year because of the obese, the lazy, the sugar-water guzzlers and carcinogen eaters, the vaccinators, the promiscuous and the pharmaceutical industry and politicians that cater to their every whim.

79

Sedov,

Scotland 13/02/2007 16:35:42

#75 Mike J - you have your own shame, where the richest nation in the world could not ( or would not) look after your own after Hurrican Katrina and medical supplies did not reach those who needed them most, the poorest in society. Of course if such a disaster had happened in New England or California it would have been a different story.

80

Iain fae Elgin,

London 13/02/2007 16:54:59

£6 Billion for the Olympics....??

Shame on a society that puts such things before the Health of its own people.

81

Willow,

Cheshire 13/02/2007 17:07:00

The SMC should be ashamed of themselves to refuse treatment of Sutent to kidney cancer patients. This drug is the only ray of light for patients, including my Mum, terminally ill with this horrendous disease - kidney cancer is unique in that it doesn't respond to chemotherapy or radiation - the immunotherapy offered has a success rate of between 7-15% for patients - is this all patients can expect from their healthcare in Scotland? Sutent is used with great success all over the western world and has been approved by the EU commission...what have they seen that the SMC hasn't? Let's also remember that this isn't a long term treatment option as these patients have a terminal disease - but as clinical data has shown this drug has shown remarkable results in halting progression of the disease and offering a double survival rate. I would ask people to sign the 10 Downing Street petition to highlight this scandal of desperately ill patients being sentenced to death by their health authorities - Scotland now leading this list..
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/kidneycancerRCC/

I truly believe the SMC should have to look into the eye of each patient that they deny this life saving drug to. These patients have now been sent straight to palliative care by their health service - what a immoral lot you are at the SMC.

82

Reggy,

Canada 13/02/2007 17:30:12

So true #79 my dad cured his prostate cancer in spite of the oncologist, and the radiation and chemo he was to get... but didn't.
Sixty days of a juice diet, thirty pounds lost and cancer gone. it's two years later and he is as good as ever.Of course "Oncolyn" has played a big part in the recovery too.
The Dr.s figure they might have misdiagnosed his cancer, but this means that they can make mistakes too no?

83

Stushie,

Glasgow 13/02/2007 17:44:21

Last week, readers were all praising the joys of euthanasia and bashing religion; this week, we're deploring the cost of life-saving drugs and blaming capitalism.

What a bunch of moaners we've become!

84

Mark Oliva,

Bavaria 13/02/2007 19:05:49

Look at it on the bright side. If this medicine hadn't been eliminated, Tony might have had to cut his military budget for Iraq. Priorities are priorities, don't you know.

85

Martha,

13/02/2007 21:24:53

Americans pay through the nose for prescriptions while consumers in other nations get the same drugs at enormously reduced prices, thanks to the licensing agreements with Big Pharma here. Why is it that you can buy Canadian medicines manufactured under licensing agreements with Pfizer and other American pharmaceutical companies for half the price that they cost in the States?

As for the NHS, you wanted socialized medicine and you got it. It's a utopian notion that can never fly. However, before Britain goes private again, you're going to have to revamp your enormously complex and antiquated system of doctors' referrals.

Here in the USA, if we need a doctor, we call one, and usually get an appointment within the month. We see the physician, get our prescriptions filled at the pharmacy, and it's all very efficient. For urgent care, there are thousands of urgent-care centers around the country. For true emergencies, there are emergency rooms (ERs) at every hospital, which our resident third-world population like to use as their very own personal medical system at taxpayer expense-- hospitals are forbidden to turn them away.

And, here in Florida, there are the winter Canadians who plan their surgeries and treatments down here because they aren't available in Canada with its stupid and criminally negligent socialized health system, and so they take up the hospital beds that Americans need and pay for in high health insurance costs. You can go through the hospital parking lots and count the Canadian license plates by the score.

86

Kidney Cancer Patient,

Scotland 13/02/2007 21:26:30

Just following the Sutent debate or should I say debacle.

Interesting though it may have been to try and reduce this to a political discussion, can we just get back to the facts. I thought there was no death penalty in Great (?) Britian. People will die in Scotland because some suits in an office have decided that they are entitled to play God with people lives.

To all those people out there with their careful and controlled reactions to this appalling decision. Think on this. Could you do it - could you sit down with a cancer patient hold their hand and tell them that their own Country WILL NOT ( they can but they choose not to) pay the money to keep them alive. That their life is just not worth saving. Take a long look at your MUM or DAD or CHILD and try saying to them.....
"sorry but I have to be rational about this and I have other things I need to spend my money on. I have to be sensible about this, your life is just not that important, you are not worth that amount of money. I have the money but I can't spend it on saving your life, because there are other things that are more important ."

And if you can do that then resign from the human race because you are no good to the rest of us, we are meant to be here to look after each other.

And if you want a less emotional arguement, just hope that if you are ever in a serious car accident or bably burnt in a house fire, or need a heart or liver transplant - just hope that the person leaning over you and making the decision on whether to keep you alive or not is not the same guy who has just sentenced the Kidney Cancer patients of Scotland to an early grave.

It may be drugs for desperately ill cancer patients today , what will it be tomorrow?.

Please sign our e-petition for NHS funding of Kidney Cancer drugs & click this link to show solidarity with kidney cancer patients:
http

87

socialmedic,

USA 13/02/2007 21:29:58

Here we go again, as those boast two point something children per (Scottish) family in Scotland, Scotland depopulating ... "we don't have enough people..." AND YET we have crowded classrooms, cant afford to give our teachers and our ambulance staff a break, can't afford to treat our cancer patients .. really sounds like one hell of a crowded place for so "depopulated" a country. Now if we couple the information from this video: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=409492672712806..., called Immigration by the Numbers with the population statistics in Gore's video, An Inconvenient Truth, an its affect on global warming we can get a clear idea that not only the environment that sustains us suffers from this burgeoning world population, even when WE in the West are doing everything right, we STILL cant afford the lives we are making our sacrifices for???? "The NUMBERS are overwhelming" us and totally ripping apart our very social fabric. Roy Beck explains very nicely why we just can't keep up and how immigration which has doubled the USA population since 1970 has totally stressed all social sevices and infrastructures. If your tax money was not going to keeping up with the overwhelming numbers, building more schools, etc etc etc, for THEM your social system would afford YOUR needs.

88

Martha,

13/02/2007 21:41:37

Every country in the world, including the USA, refuses to pay at some point for medical care. Medical science today can keep people alive almost indefinitely, and yet the money to do it is finite.

This latest issue in Scotland is the logical end of the situation you all got yourselves into by clamoring for socialized medicine way back when, despite the obvious fact that sooner or later there would be no public funds to pay for long-term catastrophic illnesses like cancer, and while public health education was nonexistent. Heavy drinking, lifelong smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle are guaranteed to bring far more long-term illnesses than proper diet and enough exercise do, and at a much younger age.

So, the people who have cared for themselves and still somehow acquire cancer have to pay for the ridiculous lifestyle of their fat, alcoholic, smoking brethren who don't give a damn, who indulge themselves at every turn, and then expect the public to pay for it.

My only concern is that we manage to keep such a scheme as socialized medicine away from our shores. People are people the wide world over, and at least half of them at any given time will coast along on other people's effort and money, given half a chance.

89

Mike J,

US 13/02/2007 22:20:51

#80 Sedov, you're probably right. California or a New England state would probably have put the buses to good use and got their people the heck out.

But you make a very good point here: governments pretty much suck at most things they do. They're expensive, unproductive, and inefficient. That's the nature of government, for the very reasons I've cited above. It has nothing to do with whether you're in Louisiana or New England--government just has very little incentive to do much well.

(Or do you fall for the Kanye West tripe: "George Bush hates black people." Please...)

So you want to turn over your country's entire health care system to this same government that couldn't handle Katrina well? Not me, thank you very much.

Thanks for making my point for me.

90

Mike J,

US 13/02/2007 22:21:54

#90 Thank You Martha!!

Let's keep socialized medicine away from here, or the next thing you know we'll be reading articles like this one in American newspapers. For shame.

91

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 13/02/2007 23:26:26

People should become more self reliant on medical care - it is clear that the government has a either non sensical, stupid approach or a much more sinister selfish one.

Immigration must be be curbed to a sustainable level whilst we get our country back on its feet. we are already over populated - just look at our infrastructure it is plain to see that we need less people not more ... but maybe that's why their not handing out effective drugs ...

It is not racist to say 'we're full!' it is impractical, unworkable and destructive to have our borders open to the extent they are just now. Sombody has to have the spheres to stand up and address the problem and it sadly is not an issues with any of the mainstream political parties. So it is up to us to let them know enough is enough on so many issues and just keep on firing your MP until they REALLY represent you.

92

Kitti Kat,

13/02/2007 23:39:33

What a shame that the gov't. has control over who gets what medicine. You have some of the finest doctors and medical schools in the world yet the citizens can't get the meds needed. It may be "free" but someone is making choices about care other than the patient or his family. I am fortunate that I have private insurance and was able to get the treatment I needed when I was ill. I sincerely hope that people in the UK are allowed the meds that will keep them alive and healthy. Different story if the patient has a short time to live or no med will help .But if something will make one feel better and prolong a decent life, why with-hold it jsut because the gov't says "no".

93

Sambo,

The deep south 13/02/2007 23:49:12

I remember growing up in Scotland in the late forties, we had 2 doctors assigned to the nieghborhood NHS, we called them, asprin and aspro. Apparently that was their remedies that they prescribed. Useless as tits on a boar hog.

94

Sambo,

The deep south 13/02/2007 23:52:37

#90
Martha, Whoow,
lighten up darlin, talk to me.
Chasmit1@bellsouth.net

95

Sambo,

The deep south 13/02/2007 23:56:40

#81,
I agree 100%/

96

JG,

Fife 14/02/2007 00:12:40

God Martha, you're a right wee generous-spirited, kind hearted soul, aren't you? While I agree our NHS has been abused in the past and now needs a good overhaul, I hope we never become as unkind as you are. Let's all just save the rich folks, eh?

97

The Wizard,

OZ 14/02/2007 00:13:13

Why should the govt spend millions trying to help people for no return when they can spend the millions on speed camera's and rake in huge profits.
I repeat one of my previous posts. The health service here introduced a new nursing structure. We ended up with more nurses wandering around carrying clipboards than we had to man ICU. Of course we had to find them all office space and associated equipment, computers, photocopiers,
desks, chairs, whiteboards for their charts etc.
The waste of money in the health service is apalling.

98

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta , California 14/02/2007 01:14:14

Martha's rants #87 #90

Hey hey Martha, see you are at it again.

Suggest you change your name to
MARTHA'S RANTS.

And for all you non Americans don't get suckered in by ranting Martha.

Its true anyone can go into a US Emergency Room and get medical attention.

What Martha dosen't tell you is .

They will check your credentials and your personal material status .

If they find anything of material value a Home , a credit card then they pounce on you .

And put Liens on your property, demand payments throught your Credit card @ 21% ARP.

Put the collectors on your back a very nasty experience.

In the US we have 46 million residents with no medical insurance.

And another estimated 37 million Americans going broke because of their credit card debt, owed to pay for their medical proceedure.

Caution with Martha's rant is advised.

And in true american parrot fashion

HAVE A NICE DAY.

GC

99

Menzies,

Canada 14/02/2007 02:00:32

Kind of sad that this article is followed by one stating that "Executive pays £35m to firms with 'little future in Scotland' ". Priorities, eh?

As for Martha's idiotic comment "because they aren't available in Canada with its stupid and criminally negligent socialized health system, and so they take up the hospital beds that Americans need and pay for in high health insurance costs": those are older Canadians who live there in the winter months ("Snowbirds"), Martha, fleeing the cold and snow, not a "criminally negligent" health care system. Older/elderly people statistically need more health care and intervention so if they live there for 5 months, chances are they'll need a hospital. Judging from the appalling poverty I've seen in parts of Florida, that State would really feel it if the Snowbirds stopped injecting their millions into the economy, so kwitcherbitchin.

Our health care system, while not perfect, allowed me to have first class, state of the art heart surgery which saved my life, with the cost completely covered and first-rate care afterward. We have among the top children's hospitals and hospitals for brain surgery in the world. Our cancer research is, per capita, one of the highest in the world. There is always room for improvement but I'd take our system over that in the US any day.

Thanks, 98 and 100. It gets tiresome.

100

Menzies,

Canada 14/02/2007 02:27:57

#81 Prinz: I always enjoy your posts. Agree wholeheartedly.

101

Theo,

Richmond, Va. USA 14/02/2007 02:33:20

Needless to say health is one of the biggest problems world wide. A NHS is great but they are a business! They get X number of bucks a year to deliver Y amount of service. I am sure there are companies in the UK that will sell you additional health insurance.
Friends choke it up, get a policy and enjoy the discount offered because of NHS.

102

,

14/02/2007 10:57:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 368783, Article id was mapped to record!
103

rab, glasgow,

14/02/2007 18:00:06

Andy kerr would rather waste £2.5 million on stupid tv ads telling people to wash their hands.
Do we really have to accept this kind of incompetance from the numpty,s at folyrood?

104

motorcal,

michigan U.S.A. 14/02/2007 18:34:51

Your government [like ours] needs the cash to spend in iraq.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.