If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Woman loses bid to be allowed Herceptin on NHS
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
According to the Beeb;
"A breast cancer patient has lost her landmark legal challenge to be allowed the drug Herceptin on the NHS. Ann Marie Rogers, 53, had gone to court after she was denied the drug - which is not licensed for early-stage breast cancer - by Swindon NHS bosses. But the judge ruled that the trust had not been acting unlawfully. Mrs Rogers has been given leave to appeal against the court's decision, and will be able to receive Herceptin treatment until then. Mrs Rogers is in the early stages of breast cancer, but has an aggressive form of the disease." Click for details.
This is an extremely sensitive issue, so I'm going to tread carefully here. I sympathise hugely with this woman's plight. She could die potentially because of this, so this is not an issue to be treated lightly. The court made the judgement, however, on whether the policy of Swindon NHS bosses was unlawful. They decided it was not. Also, it should be noted that NICE hasn't yet given approval to this drug. Therefore, they have acted within the law. I pray this decision does not lead to more heartache for this woman.
What do you make of this verdict?
"A breast cancer patient has lost her landmark legal challenge to be allowed the drug Herceptin on the NHS. Ann Marie Rogers, 53, had gone to court after she was denied the drug - which is not licensed for early-stage breast cancer - by Swindon NHS bosses. But the judge ruled that the trust had not been acting unlawfully. Mrs Rogers has been given leave to appeal against the court's decision, and will be able to receive Herceptin treatment until then. Mrs Rogers is in the early stages of breast cancer, but has an aggressive form of the disease." Click for details.
This is an extremely sensitive issue, so I'm going to tread carefully here. I sympathise hugely with this woman's plight. She could die potentially because of this, so this is not an issue to be treated lightly. The court made the judgement, however, on whether the policy of Swindon NHS bosses was unlawful. They decided it was not. Also, it should be noted that NICE hasn't yet given approval to this drug. Therefore, they have acted within the law. I pray this decision does not lead to more heartache for this woman.
What do you make of this verdict?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
However, the evidence seems to be there (in part) for the effectiveness of the drug.
That's whats most irritating. I'm not the cleverist person, and the politics and laws behind all these sort of cases baffle me, but this is the second (news covered) appeal we've had in the last year (or so).
This drug is supposed to be really helpful. And they're admitting they the public are right. Yet they wont bring it in....?
Yes and no, as I understand it one study suggested that the drug can be quite effective if taken early in the cancer (its licenced for use late on). But thats it, at the moment it seems to be only one full study, which isnt enough to base a judgement on.
Roche the drug company which owns the drug have been accused of dragging their feet over licence applications for earlier use, though why they would I dont know. Maybe they hope they can sell it without having to bother with a licence.
No-one can say I don't know in a deeply personal way the impact of cancer, but she shouldn't be given it. Not now.
Sorry to be picky, but isnt it the cancer that is going to kill her, not the courts
There is a difference between a courts decision killing someone, and deciding not to give her a drug which "may" potentially save her
The cost of that drug- a drug that has no proven benefits- could save the lives of hundreds of other people. It could save those with mental illness, it could save those with heart problems, it could save other cancer sufferers.
I really do sympathise with this lady's plight, but she has rightly been found against in this judicial review.
Too true...lots of people seem to think that the NHS has a bottomless pit of money....welll it doesn't, and those in control of the budget have to decide where best to spend those funds. Unfortunately spending all that money, on one patient, on an unlicensed drug, is just not viable :no:
Not really, the efficacy of the drug is still in question. It costs £21k for one person to be treated for a year. Based on the current success rate, the NHS will have to spend £500k just to get a single success.
In what way are they screwing her over?
Just a thought, which you may not have, but the same £21k could be spent on providing a nurse to treat Lymhpoedema patients. These people will ultimately end up in a wheelchair. The success rate for nurse treatment is nearly 100% and yet the NHS doesn't invest in this service much. A single nurse could treat over 300 patients in a year.
Which do you think is the better spend? Is it better to "screw one person over" or 300?
Those are the choices which some of us have to make.
Because its going to be licenced soon and other areas have allowed its use.
It might get licenced, but even then the PCT is under no obligation to provide it for everyone who asks for it.
The issue of "value for money" is still paramount because the PCT has an obligation to ensure that the needs of the majority are not outweighed by the needs of an individual.
BTW You didn't answer the question about who is really egtting screwed over here. And I didn't even mentioned the cost to the PCT of defending their decision in court - how many treatments will be prevented because of that?
If Slovenia can stump the cash up to provide the drug then why can't the NHS...
1. It is unlicensed in the UK
2. Money could be fairer spent elsewhere
Licenses are there for a reason. Primarily to protect us all from possibly harmful drugs. The licensing laws are strict for a reason. Do you remember the drug Thalidomide? It caused birth defects in 10 000 children worldwide. But since then licensing laws have been made tighter because we learn from our mistakes (Thalidomide was never sold in the USA as there were doubts of its safety). The license thing is issued after stringent testing which Herceptin is still undergoing.
Scare resources. Maybe Slovenians pay more tax? Or spend less in other areas? You can't just pretend that the NHS has as much money as they fancy having. They need to allocate resources fairly.
I'm not just saying this to be harsh either. My mother had breast cancer at 42 and my grandmother died of the disease when she was only 46.
...
It is in the drugs company's best interest to get it licensed as soon as they can so there must be a reason they aren't ready yet :chin:
Lot of free publicity going around at the moment, isn't there?
Still not relevant. The NICE acceptance is though. NICE may still say that it isn't financially worthwhile. Even then they will only provide "guidance" which doesn't have to be followed.
She also told them to balance their books. She also said that only people diagnosed after 5th October should even be considered (why that date, surely that's just arbitary?), she also said that more people should be treated in community hospitals, that GPs should be paid more (ditto nurses), that people shouldn't wait for surgery, or for MRIs, CT scans, X-Rays etc.
Except it isn't. It's a political mess, it's a media mess. From an NHS point of view it's fairly straight forward. The drug isn't licenced, there are other treatments - proven to work - which need funding and so there really isn't a debate. Weonly have so much money to spend. personally I'd rather treat 300 people, than just one.
Why is that so hard to accept?
Other than the fact that breast cancer is a "sexy" story for the tabloids.
Who isn't funded by the NHS for the first three years...
Another reason to drop a couple of quid in the Macmillan collection box if you ask me.