Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Cancer patients may still have to go private for drugs – Sturgeon



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: 14 May 2008
SOME cancer sufferers may still be forced to turn to the private sector for life-saving drugs, Nicola Sturgeon, the health secretary, admitted yesterday.
She told MSPs looking at why some cancer drugs are not freely available on the NHS that "difficult decisions" sometimes had to be made. And she said there was no guarantee the NHS would always be able to provide drugs necessary for treatment.

The
Scottish Parliament's petitions committee is holding an inquiry following a campaign for free treatment by Mike Gray, who died from bowel cancer last month.

The 53-year-old from Buckie, in Moray, had been told by NHS Grampian he could not get a drug he needed, cetuximab, for free and would have to go private. He ended up paying £1,700 a week to get it.

After an appeal and embarrassing publicity, the health authority relented – but after Mr Gray's death, it admitted "quite an awful error" had been made in the way it had dealt with the patient.

Ms Sturgeon yesterday answered questions on whether cases such as Mr Gray's could be avoided in the future.

But her responses provided little hope for many cancer sufferers who face the same struggle as Mr Gray.

The minister said similar problems were likely to surface again and that it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

She also insisted that specialists had to be allowed the freedom to make the life and death decisions.

"I think it is important to recognise that difficult decisions will always have to be made,'' she said. "It would be dishonest of me as an MSP to say to the public at large that these difficult decisions will not be confronted by other individuals in the future."

Ms Sturgeon added that NHS Grampian would "freely admit" there had been shortcomings in the way Mr Gray had been treated.

She said: "The decision-making process should rest with experts, so that any sufferer who disagrees can have confidence in the way it was reached."

However, she sent her condolences to the family and friends of Mr Gray and said: "His dignity and perseverance in pursuing his petition I think should be a lesson to all of us."

Margaret Curran, Labour's shadow health secretary, pointed out that Ms Sturgeon had failed to come up with a plan to help cancer patients.

"It appears that, in this case, the only person not to have learned any lessons in Nicola Sturgeon," she said.

"Rather than lay out how she might move her government to supporting cancer sufferers, she instead says it's inevitable that people will continue to pay for cancer drugs.

"The Scottish Government should be striving to do better in this area of care."

Nanette Milne, a former NHS doctor and a Conservative member of the petitions committee, said: "I thought Ms Sturgeon was sympathetic and I think the committee impressed on her the need to look at the guidance on drugs, which she said she would do."





The full article contains 508 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 May 2008 9:45 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 14/05/2008 00:38:09
I see: 'Free Health Care' is only free if you don't have a life threatening disease.

Should you face death if you don't get certain remedies, the taxes you paid in are null and void, as is the 'free' in the 'National Health Care' cognomen.

Just another reason to do away with a worthless 'National Health Care' system, which neither works nor cares about individuals: politics rule the day.

A heavy price to pay for politics, don't you think?

Cheers from the Rockies
2

Hector Goodrich (Dr),

Gillin pronounced 'Gullane'. 14/05/2008 07:36:52
1 - I see: 'Free Health Care' is only free if you don't have a life threatening disease.

No, you don't see. Now, away back up the hills to your cabin.
3

antifa,

14/05/2008 10:56:14
1 - the problem is underfunding. Unlike the US, we spend a relatively small proportion of GDP on health - less than 8% on the NHS, compared to the US which spends 16% (making it by far and away the most expensive and inefficient healthcare system in the world). The NHS has much better outcomes that the US, despite this underfunding, and of course the key advantage is that we have universal care (most of which is excellent) whereas in the US, 40 million are uninsured. However, like any insurance system (public or private) there are constraints on what can be provided if you don't raise enough funds.
4

Allan(handofgod137),

14/05/2008 10:56:35
Another shining example of how the tartan trots ignore the people, it's a disgrace that someone who was born here, worked all their life and paid their taxes is denied a p-otentially life saving treatment, while an economic migrant or medical tourist just has to turn up and claim asylum, and they'll get thousands worth of anti virals a month to treat the HIV they bring with them.
5

Paula,

14/05/2008 14:27:24
Here is a funding cut idea.

Druggies; what is it, something like £12million wasted on these low lifes every year? Providing them with whatever it is they need to continue their life of destruction and crime.

They do not commit to anything other than the status quo therefore money used to treat them is wasted.
6

John Blackley,

Florida 14/05/2008 14:55:11
The only true thing I can remember Neil Kinnock ever saying was, "In Britain, don't get old and don't get ill."

It's true, as antifa has pointed out, that in the United States there are forty million people without health insurance. That does not mean, however, that there are forty million people without healthcare. Far from it.

I would like antifa to help me with another of his/her assertions: On what do you base your claim that, "The NHS has much better outcomes that the US"?
7

,

14/05/2008 15:54:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Lillig,

14/05/2008 17:06:41
6 - John Buckley, Florida.

In the UK, ambulances do not turn you away if you don't have health insurance. If you get shot in the leg, as happened to the son of one of my friends whilst driving a taxi to support him during studies, you are not left without the necessary therapy to assist your leg to recovery.

The people at the bottom of the heap in parts of the USA can expect very limited treatment. Is that healthcare?

Until not so long ago, it was impossible for the NHS to take payment from foreigners visiting the country, so all were treated free at Accident and Emergency level.

However, what happened to that poor man is totally unacceptable.
9

John Blackley,

Florida 14/05/2008 17:51:23
#8 Lillig, thank you for responding to my comment.

My sympathy for what happened to your friend's son. I hope he eventually got the help he needed.

While anecdotes are enlightening - sometimes - the only thing they encourage is tit-for-tat conversation. You tell a story about the son of someone you know, I - or somebody else - chips in with a story about the NHS.

I do not claim that the American healthcare system is without fault (I'm a frequent customer and can find plenty to complain about). I do question urban myths, though, as they divert attention from the real problems that the American healthcare system needs to address.

Myth #1: If you do not have insurance you cannot get healthcare. Not true. Every community - be it a city or a county - operates a healthcare facility for uninsured patients. Even if a patient needs care at a facility that requires payment - and that patient cannot pay - there are many programs to help the uninsured pay for treatment.
10

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 14/05/2008 20:26:11
I have two comments on this topic:

1. The issue of hyper-expensive drugs is not going to go away and is because of new "designer" molecule technology that can produce a treatment for many rare and hitherto untreatable conditions. The small numbers of people who need them means that the drug companies charge extraordinary prices - £250k or more per annum in some cases.

That equals the total drug budget for getting on for 1000 people in most of Scotland and is a massive potential cost to the NHS. If people want automatic entitlement to everything and anything then we will all have to dig deep in our pockets to pay the taxes needed.

Until then decisions must be made on the basis of overall benefit and priorities - should 1000 people lose out to benefit one? Not an easy decision for those who have to make it!

2. I have worked in an American health system and I swore never to go near private medicine again - great if you have plenty money or are employed but a disgrace if you don't! Americans on here should take a long hard look at their own class- and privilege-ridden society before preaching to us!
11

,

14/05/2008 20:51:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

14/05/2008 20:56:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

,

14/05/2008 20:59:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 15/05/2008 23:25:04
Hello Finlay and Antifa,

You both wrote posts full of opinion but sadly lacking any verifiable FACTS, concerning the comparatives between the US System and the Universal Health Care Systems of Great Britain (and Canada).

Do a Google Search concerning the 5 year survival rates for various Cancers, in the USA, Great Britain, and Canada. What you find will shock and disturb you, and I hope also, make you exceedingly angry; at your own NHS.

Some of what you will find is this:

5 years after successfully completing cancer treatments for prostate cancer, 88% (88 out of every 100 men) of men living in the USA were still alive, while in Great Britain, only 42% (42 out of every 100 men) of British men whom had successfully complete cancer treatments for prostate cancer survived.

Their health care was 'free' (though really not, in that they paid/pay through the nose for the 'free care'), however, one can see from the Survival Rates, that 'free' does NOT mean 'effective'.

12 of every 100 American men after 5 years end up dying from Prostate Cancer AFTER treatment.
58 of every 100 British men after 5 years end up dying from Prostate Cancer AFTER treatment.

Given these numbers, were I suffering from Prostate Cancer, my chances of surviving in America are FAR SUPERIOR to the chances of my British counterparts.

The same is true when Survival Rates for Breast/Ovarian cancers are compared between Canadian Women and American women, 5 years after successfully completing treatment for those cancers.

The bottom line is that though America has some serious health care system issues, the level of treatment is the best in the world; that's why so many Canadians and yes Brits, come to America to get the treatment that their own Universal Health Care Systems either cannot or will not provide.

Cheers from the Rockies

 

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.