Cancer patient let down by Government NHS policy
A former nurse and mother of two who is suffering from breast cancer has been denied the opportunity to benefit from a potentially life-extending drug, even though she was prepared to pay for it, because allowing her to pay for the drug would conflict with the government's socialist vision of the NHS.
The NHS is prepared to provide a drug called Taxol, but not an additional drug called Avastin. An American trial suggests that taking the two drugs in combination doubles the chance of preventing cancer from spreading compared with the chances for patients who are just taking Taxol.
When the NHS was only willing to provide former nurse Colette Mills with Taxol, she wanted to supplement this course with Avastin at her own expense. Unfortunately this
would have fallen foul of a ruling which states that any patient who wants to pay for additional drugs should lose entitlment to basic NHS cancer care. Where paying just for Avastin would have cost Ms Mills about £4,000 a month which she might have been able to raise, paying for her full treatment would have cost £10,000 per month.
According to today's Sunday Times the reason given for this policy by the Department of Health was not any question marks over the safety of the drug, but that top-up payments from patients would mean a two tier health service and "undermine" the "fundamental principle of the NHS ... that treatment should be free at the point of need."
Ms Mills took the NHS to court over this, but in the four months since she started to do so, the cancer has spread to other parts of her body and it is now too late for her to benefit from the treatment.
I agree that the treatment provided by the NHS should be free at the point of need. I also think that the NHS should provide as broad a range of treatments as can practically and safely be provided, and should provide them to everyone on an equal basis. But I do not agree that the Department of Health should effectively sabotage the ability of those of modest means to pay for additional care beyond what the NHS can provide.
If Colette Mills had been a millionaire she would undoubtedly have paid for the whole service and her cancer might not have spread. It is not right to adopt a policy under which the very rich can pay for extra care but those who are not wealthy enough to be able to afford to go completely private are prevented from receiving the extra care which they would be willing and able to pay for. Those who adopted this policy may have the best of intentions but the actual impact on real human beings is vindictive and cruel.
The NHS is prepared to provide a drug called Taxol, but not an additional drug called Avastin. An American trial suggests that taking the two drugs in combination doubles the chance of preventing cancer from spreading compared with the chances for patients who are just taking Taxol.
When the NHS was only willing to provide former nurse Colette Mills with Taxol, she wanted to supplement this course with Avastin at her own expense. Unfortunately this
would have fallen foul of a ruling which states that any patient who wants to pay for additional drugs should lose entitlment to basic NHS cancer care. Where paying just for Avastin would have cost Ms Mills about £4,000 a month which she might have been able to raise, paying for her full treatment would have cost £10,000 per month.
According to today's Sunday Times the reason given for this policy by the Department of Health was not any question marks over the safety of the drug, but that top-up payments from patients would mean a two tier health service and "undermine" the "fundamental principle of the NHS ... that treatment should be free at the point of need."
Ms Mills took the NHS to court over this, but in the four months since she started to do so, the cancer has spread to other parts of her body and it is now too late for her to benefit from the treatment.
I agree that the treatment provided by the NHS should be free at the point of need. I also think that the NHS should provide as broad a range of treatments as can practically and safely be provided, and should provide them to everyone on an equal basis. But I do not agree that the Department of Health should effectively sabotage the ability of those of modest means to pay for additional care beyond what the NHS can provide.
If Colette Mills had been a millionaire she would undoubtedly have paid for the whole service and her cancer might not have spread. It is not right to adopt a policy under which the very rich can pay for extra care but those who are not wealthy enough to be able to afford to go completely private are prevented from receiving the extra care which they would be willing and able to pay for. Those who adopted this policy may have the best of intentions but the actual impact on real human beings is vindictive and cruel.
Comments
Private "wealth-care" is brutal
http://stopunum.com/the-american-sicko-system/
http://stopunum.com/british-sicko-coming-soon-or-is-it-here-already/
Support the Goals of StopUnum.com