Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1,000 cancer patients 'refused treatment'
Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | August 14, 2009 | Kate Devlin

Posted on 08/14/2009 4:25:25 AM PDT by Schnucki

Charities warned that patients with less common forms of cancer were being discriminated against, while others condemned the system as a “scandal”.

Patients and their doctors can appeal for the NHS to pay for drugs not currently licensed for that type of the disease.

But one in three applications were turned down in the last three years, leaving patients having to pay up £20,000 for the medication themselves.

The Rarer Cancers Forum, who obtained the figures, said that patients in France were up to 55 per cent more likely to get so-called “near-label” treatment, drugs licensed for a similar disease, than those in Britain.

Rare cancers include pancreatic cancer, which Patrick Swayze is currently battling and which affects around 7,000 people in Britain every year.

Stella Pendleton, executive director of the charity, said: “If a doctor thinks that a patient with a rarer cancer should be given a drug, then the NHS should fund it.

“The NHS is forcing desperate patients into the cruel situation where the chances of their being given the treatment they need depend on where they live.

“No patient should be denied a treatment recommended by a doctor simply because the cancer it treats is too rare for the medicine to be licensed.

“We need these obstacles removed.”

Dr Beatrice Seddon, a consultant clinical oncologist at University College Hospital, London said: “When conventional treatment options are exhausted, some patients are still strong enough to be able to continue their fight against cancer.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bhoheathcare; britain; cancer; deathcare; deathpanel; deathpanels; healthcare; nhs; ukhealth; ukhealthcare

1 posted on 08/14/2009 4:25:25 AM PDT by Schnucki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
Allow me to say this: with government health care, there will not only be rationing, there will be politically-correct rationing. Are you a smoker or obese? Why, you should have taken better care of yourself. Do you have HIV as a result of a risky sex life? Step to the front of the line.

Just my prediction. You will also see politically-correct rationing in other forms, just as you have seen political correctness in the home loan industry, the awarding of federal contracts, in city hiring decisions, etc. Your health concerns will be thrown in the pool and stirred around until the statistics meet what some panel of bureaucrats think is the perfect fairness rainbow.

2 posted on 08/14/2009 4:32:40 AM PDT by Puddleglum ("due to the record harvest, rationing will continue as usual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
there will not only be rationing, there will be politically-correct rationing. Are you a smoker or obese? Why, you should have taken better care of yourself. Do you have HIV as a result of a risky sex life? Step to the front of the line.

More troubling than that, in my mind, is that government health care is an invitation for the government to regulate the behaviors of citizens in the guise of cost-control measures.

We've seen this already with tobacco--one of the trump cards the anti-tobacco lobby likes to play is the cost of treating tobacco-related illnesses. This is important because tobacco-related illenesses most often occur when the user is older and eligible for medicare. When taxpayers are footing the bill for the treatment, taxpayers have a (legitimate) right to dictate how you behave.

So once you open the door to government health care, it becomes about cost control, so all sorts of dangerous things become fair game for regulation--helmet laws, seat belt laws, tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, salt content, etc.

I don't think it's about smokers to the back of the line--it's "there will not be smokers." Their care is too expensive.

3 posted on 08/14/2009 4:39:49 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

Interesting,,three of the councils turned all requests down and others approved more. So it was purely budgetary. That is what we face.

Turning freely available resources, cancer drugs, into sparse commodities with rationing.

This creates the lifeboat situation that E Emmanuel writes about and the “ethical dilemmas” of who to pay for.

I suspect that here in the US to get any treatment for cancer beyond the proven standard treatment will take a patient right to clinical trials. That is a huge part of treatment now.

But I don’t know that a new system would want trials or that companies would invest in them,,to expensive you know and creates a need and a right for effective new expensive drugs.

Our system will slow and halt. No more new lifesaving drugs will emerge from companies who have no incentive to develope them.


4 posted on 08/14/2009 4:40:35 AM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

Interesting,,three of the councils turned all requests down and others approved more. So it was purely budgetary. That is what we face.

Turning freely available resources, cancer drugs, into sparse commodities with rationing.

This creates the lifeboat situation that E Emmanuel writes about and the “ethical dilemmas” of who to pay for.

I suspect that here in the US to get any treatment for cancer beyond the proven standard treatment will take a patient right to clinical trials. That is a huge part of treatment now.

But I don’t know that a new system would want trials or that companies would invest in them,,to expensive you know and creates a need and a right for effective new expensive drugs.

Our system will slow and halt. No more new lifesaving drugs will emerge from companies who have no incentive to develope them.


5 posted on 08/14/2009 4:40:40 AM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

I predict people membership in certain organizations will help you move to the front of the line. Say, do you suppose an Ivy League degree will give you a leg up? After all, that’s a big investment in a life, certainly more than a degree from some community college or a mere high school diploma.


6 posted on 08/14/2009 4:41:28 AM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of cat attacks while typing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

“Allow me to say this: with government health care, there will not only be rationing, there will be politically-correct rationing.”

Of this there is little doubt.
Of note is that political correctness holds on predominantly because the media gives it legitimacy.


7 posted on 08/14/2009 4:42:09 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
But one in three applications were turned down in the last three years, leaving patients having to pay up £20,000 for the medication themselves.

At least they will be able to use their own $$$$$$--unlike Americans
8 posted on 08/14/2009 4:42:15 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
My father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer at age 58. The surgery was horrible, and he spent weeks in ICU. That was 15 years ago. My girls were babies.

He definitely has life challenges because of what happened -will never be able to lie down flat, must eat at specified times many times per day, and the change to his digestion system causes diabetes-like blood sugar fluctuations. He has suffered from chronic kidney stones since he was a young man. But he's alive, and at 73, he enjoys his many hobbies and lives as normal a life as he possibly can.

Esophageal cancer has a terrible survival rate. Had Obamacare existed 15 years ago, my girls would know their beloved grandfather only through pictures.

9 posted on 08/14/2009 5:06:57 AM PDT by Mygirlsmom (Obama's been in Washington over 100 days and all I got was this lousy economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Interesting,,three of the councils turned all requests down and others approved more. So it was purely budgetary. That is what we face.

My husband attended a medical conference in Britain in June. His impression of the conference was that the research presented was all in the area of cost containment and analyzing how well the techs perform the services that a doctor would do here. They rely on the US for true medical advancement.

10 posted on 08/14/2009 5:08:51 AM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of cat attacks while typing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

These councils would qualify as “Death Councils” in my book. Claims that “it isn’t in the bill” are out-right lies, but even if true, every government-run healthcare system winds up in the same place, just by different roads.

The Obamacare supporters still rely on the belief that “our liberals are smarter than their liberals”.....

hh


11 posted on 08/14/2009 5:29:54 AM PDT by hoosier hick (Note to RINOs: We need a choice, not an echo....Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

In addition, the current health care bill allows the government to snoop into your financial situation via electronic health care records. The health care bureaucrat decisionmakers will be packed with democrat hacks and will have the ability to deny treatments in part based on your perceived political/social status. If you think this is far-fetched, think again. Obama is a liar and his communist buddies in congress will see that this happens.


12 posted on 08/14/2009 5:51:31 AM PDT by reaganbooster (The democrat party symbol should be the grim reaper instead of the donkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

Rare cancers include pancreatic cancer...
**********

Not exactly a rare cancer.


13 posted on 08/14/2009 6:18:47 AM PDT by ExiledChicagoan (I see a red door and I want it painted black. But that's just me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom

I have been in foreign hospitals twice.

The first was in Spain a few years ago. I went to the cardiac unit with a group and to my surprise it was an open ward with sort of cots and people lying around. The cardiologist was sitting with a cigarette in his mouth and looking at a monitor of something while smoking in the ward.

The second time was with a child with an ear infection. We went in the examing room and there was a roach crawing around. The doc started to look in her ear and she screamed. He kept trying to force the otoscope down her ear and she was yelling so painful was it. I yanked her up, left and went to a pharmacy and got antibiotics without a Rx and treated her.

I don’t want to be ill in a foreign country.


14 posted on 08/14/2009 6:24:26 AM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

Bingo! Very good. I agree this is what will emerge if the bill passes.


15 posted on 08/14/2009 6:44:11 AM PDT by Beloved Levinite (I have a new name for the occupier of The Oval Office: KING FRAUD! (pronounced King "Faa-raud"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
Just my prediction.

It's not just your prediction. It's a self-evident reality, obvious and irrefutable. And indisputably immoral, but immorality doesn't enter the Democrats' insular little nightmare world.

16 posted on 08/14/2009 6:53:18 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (I long for the days when advertisers didn't constantly ask about the health of my genital organs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom
They rely on the US for true medical advancement.

Absolutely correct! When was the last time a France or UK or Canada for that matter invented anything that was considered a game changer, think PC, iPod, etc

Technological, medical and pharmaceutical advances all require profit to provide capital. Socialist economies do not allow for profit thereby placing the burden on the taxpayers. Ultimately the system collapses under its own weight while the quality of service deteriorates and the country's population are driven to a lower standard of living.

17 posted on 08/14/2009 7:26:51 AM PDT by JrsyJack (There's a little Jim Thompson in all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
As someone on another thread pointed out, it is also true that people who are religious, live in married stable relationships and live in rural areas and small towns are healthier than their counterparts who do not. Yet, FedGov is doing nothing to promote these healthy lifestyles and everything possible to discourage them.
18 posted on 08/14/2009 7:57:46 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or, are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Are you referring to the gun and Bible clingers?


19 posted on 08/14/2009 8:18:26 AM PDT by JrsyJack (There's a little Jim Thompson in all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Beloved Levinite

I also think we will have “beginning of life” counselors, who can examine the DNA of potential parents and say “you have too high a risk of passing on cystic fibrosis (or whatever), so if you have a baby, no insurance for you.”

It could well come to that. Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), said: “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” And this gem: “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

Bad things can and will happen when “reducing the health care burden” becomes Federal policy.


20 posted on 08/14/2009 8:31:21 AM PDT by Puddleglum ("due to the record harvest, rationing will continue as usual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

“Allow me to say this: with government health care, there will not only be rationing, there will be politically-correct rationing.”

So very true - and even more than just politically correct, it will be simply and completely politicized, with all the corruption and influence peddling that that implies.


21 posted on 08/14/2009 9:36:01 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JrsyJack

Yeah, all us bitter people who are so negative — HIV negative. :->


22 posted on 08/14/2009 10:08:41 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or, are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
Allow me to say this: with government health care, there will not only be rationing, there will be politically-correct rationing. Are you a smoker or obese? Why, you should have taken better care of yourself. Do you have HIV as a result of a risky sex life? Step to the front of the line.

And also: "Do you have cancer as a result of a life of debauchery? Why, you should have taken better...What's that? Your name is Kennedy? Oh please, do come in!"

23 posted on 08/14/2009 10:12:49 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Big government more or less guarantees rule by creeps and misfits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom

Yes, whatever. If not for America, we’d still be using leeches to treat people, yeah I get it.

Actually, Britain still makes medical breakthroughs. The problem is the NHS system dosent make the best use of them.


24 posted on 08/16/2009 6:16:48 AM PDT by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

And I have been treated in a French hospital.
My mother in Austria.

One minor complaint(mine), one serious. Both occasions we received first class care.

Swings and roundabouts....


25 posted on 08/16/2009 6:19:37 AM PDT by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JrsyJack

How ironic you make such a statement using the computer and WWW, both British (English) inventions.

And the iPod was designed by a British man!...before you bash us you might actually know a little about your subject, mate.

The second best nation for invention and scientific breakthrough behind America is Britain. We invent and think pretty well. I suggest you read these links and learn what we useless Limeys have done:

http://britsattheirbest.com/

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/ingenious/ii_21st_century.htm

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/ingenious/ii_20th_century_1971_1999.htm

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/ingenious/ii_20th_century_1950_1970.htm


26 posted on 08/16/2009 6:27:32 AM PDT by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

My point was the money for research is just not there like it is in the US. Cost containment is very important and at this conference was about 95% of the research presented. By the way, my mother in law had successful leech therapy here several years ago.


27 posted on 08/16/2009 3:38:57 PM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of cat attacks while typing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
"I don?t want to be ill in a foreign country."

If Obamaserfcare passes, the US will soon be a foreign country for many of us. If Obama prevails, THIS MUST NOT STAND should be our motto through the November elections. Conservative states must also implement interposition to put themselves between the FedGov and their citizens.

28 posted on 03/20/2010 10:28:15 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson