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
'Cancer woman runs out of time in NHS battle'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3257529.ece
I think creating a 'two-tier system' and undermining the 'fundamental principle' of the NHS, are both good things, if they mean that she would have been able to buy the drug she needed while still being treated on the NHS.
What do you think?
I think creating a 'two-tier system' and undermining the 'fundamental principle' of the NHS, are both good things, if they mean that she would have been able to buy the drug she needed while still being treated on the NHS.
What do you think?
0
Comments
I'm all for giving people whichever drugs improve their quality of life. But that will cost money. We can't have it both ways.
NICE on the whole are fine, the main issue is local authorities, which causes a postcode lottery
I'm not sure this is a case of rationing, but a system designed in the 40's unable to cope with modern thought.
Sweeping generalisation and probably not true either...
If you have a few sessions of private chiro on your back, will your GP no longer be allowed to treat your back pain on the NHS?
So a few sub-editors then....
That it's a new one on me and I'm going to have a dig around at work tomorrow about this "rule"... we have people dipping in and out of private health services all the time...
Treatment with a private chiro doesn't use any NHS facilities or resources. That's different to being willing to pay for the drugs, but expecting the NHS to fund the treatment and expertise that go along with it. Similarly, it's quite different from buying a piece of equipment for a hospital that everybody is entitled to use.
But having said that, I wouldn't have had a problem with her paying for her own drugs, providing she signs a disclaimer covering the NHS against anything that might go wrong by using a drug that presumably hasn't been cleared for use by the NHS, and the doctors aren't trained and/or experienced in using. Because I suspect (and MOK will be able to tell us) that when a new drug is introduced onto the NHS, there is a period of training informing the staff how to use it. And we all know the next Daily Mail headline would be "woman dies after being given unauthorised drug."
My aunty died a few years ago from MRSA and that nasty bug, C difficile. Both were contracted in hospital. That isn't what went on the death certificate, of course - hospital managers are too scared to admit their hospitals have got problems. I wouldn't be surprised if staff at some hospitals are instructed not to write MRSA as the cause of death. I hold the NHS responsible for her passing.
It looks like the same is happening again. Dogmatic, useless officials talk a load of bollocks about a "two-tier" NHS. What the fuck does that piece of New Labour management-speak actually mean? More blood on the hands of the NHS. Just don't expect them to clean it off the floor afterwards.
More than 50% of MRSA cases are diagnosed within 48 hours of admission, this means that they must have been contracted outside of the hospital.
So, how about we tell the "lazy" members of the public to wash their hands.
You do know that c. diff is a side effect of effective treatment don't you?
As an aside, I checked out the rule today. Basically it's the same rule which prevents us from offering part funding of any private treatment. The problem in this case is that the durg was recommended to be used in tandem with another to get the effect. The NHS therefore must pay for both, or neither.
I still don't know why the local NHS wouldn't fund it through...
you are aware some drugs can cost upwards of £40k a year when they may onlu make someone live a few months longer or a chance they might not even work at all
some drugs aren't cost effective, some are - someone has to decide, local trusts aren't, NICE is okay though
It's a daft rule. If the NHS is already providing the one drug, as it was doing, but not the other, she should have been free to buy the one the NHS was not providing out of her own money, while still receiving the one it was.
Yes, there will be some people who aren't able to do that, but those who are should be allowed to do so.
er, yes I know all that. though given that she offered to pay herself I fail to see the relevance.
It's an excellent rule and was voted for by the general public at the last election when they outsted Howards plan for the NHS to part fund private treatment which is what this was.
That doesn't mean that the NHS shouldn't have paid for this drug anyway.
okay? It's world renowned, the US Govt want to do the same thing but can't get it through congress. The problem there is one of cost - you see NICE costs the NHS £30m per year (yet saves hundreds of millions in the advice it gives on "best treatment which stop us wasting money on bad ones) but the US congress don't seem to think that it's expensive enough to run...!!!