[TribalPrincess2U]

Yet another look into the future

[Chode]

Trials show the drug, which costs £36,000 a year, can increase survival by around six months for patients who have run out of options.

so at most it's six months for $18000 and usually less. so their life isn't worth even $18000 to the state

[Habibi]

Hmmm. From familial experience, liver cancer has one of the the most grim prognosis of any cancer. It's also one of the nastiest ways to go, as it really rips you apart. Psychosis, jaundice (as you would expect), significant pain and debilitation and, if memory serves, one of the lowest chances of cure. It really is a very bad way to go.

Perhaps the only blessing is that the length of suffering is relatively short. I would be interested to see if the drug actually adds significantly to your life expectancy after your options run out, compared to letting the disease take its course. Saying that you get six months with the drug, does not mean you get six additional months that you wouldn't have had otherwise. When my family dealt with this, we were told that the average time from diagnosis to death was six months. The literature backed it up as well. Perhaps the time to death is greater now, but I would be surprised if it was.

[clee1]

Just how much do you expect the TAXPAYER to pay to give you a few more months of terrible pain and CONTINUED expensive medical treatment?

The cost of the drug itself is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

[Gapplega]

As an oncologist, the cost vs benefit ratio for some of these new drugs isn’t favorable. Some of them have response rates of 10% with the cost of thousands of dollars per month. At some point it’s of very questionable benefit. If people want to explore every possible avenue for treatment, they should pay for it out of pocket. Cold, but true.