Listen to the HEARTBEAT of a BABY 6.5 WEEKS from Fertilization
http://www.lifeissues.org/index.html
Government-Funded National Health Care: Is This Really What We Want? (2008)
Comment: It’s truly mystifying that this media outlet can publish an article like this clearly highlighting one of the problems of government-funded healthcare in another country, but refuse to see what is coming down the pike for Americans if government-run, universal healthcare is implemented.
Pushes for the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide will also be stepped up because of strained budgets as well as a general sense of hopelessness among those who suffer.
Furthermore, money will be diverted away from cancer drug research—and other types of disease research—as the system collapses under its own weight. Recently, a cancer patient was denied payment for chemotherapy in Oregon by the Oregon Health Plan. Instead, she was offered assisted suicide. (See http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html)
What else might we expect? If it’s cheaper to offer a lethal prescription for one to die, why bother investing in training staff in effective palliative care and pain management? Yes, in Great Britain and Oregon [and soon in WA State], a “right to die” has clearly evolved into a “duty to die.” --Deb Sturm, RN
Cancer Patients Lose Shot at Longer Life in U.K. Cuts (Update1)
Jack Rosser's doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.'s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.'s National Health Service says that's not worth the expense.
Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds ($4,650) per treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS -- the government agency that funds the nation's health care.
The resident of the town of
Kingswood, in southwest England, has appealed the decision twice, and
next month may find out if his second plea is successful.
``It's immoral,'' Rosser's wife, Jenny, said. ``They are sentencing him to die.''
The NHS, which provides health care to all Britons and is funded by tax
revenue, is spending about 100 billion pounds this fiscal year, or more
than double what it spent a decade ago, as the cost of treatments
increase and the population ages. The higher costs are forcing the NHS
to choose between buying expensive drugs for terminal patients and
providing more services for a wider number of people.
About 800 of 3,000 cancer patients lose their appeals for
regulator-approved drugs each year because of cost, Canterbury- based
charity Rarer Cancers Forum said. The U.K. is considering whether to
make permanent a preliminary ruling that four medicines, including
Sutent, are too expensive to be part of the government-funded treatment
of advanced kidney cancer.
`It's Outrageous'
``It's outrageous,'' said Kate Spall, a full-time activist who has
helped about 100 patients appeal NHS denials of cancer medicines. ``We
are not asking for anything new or exciting or novel. We are asking for
what the rest of the western world is getting.''
To help curb expenses, the government created the National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence, known as NICE, in 1999 to review
medicines and recommend whether the NHS should fund them.
``There is a view that all treatments should be available.
Unfortunately, that's not possible,'' said Peter Littlejohns, NICE's
clinical and public health director. ``There is a limited pot of
money.''
He said the four cancer drugs provide a ``marginal benefit at quite
often an extreme cost'' and that the agency had to keep in mind that
funds spent on the medicines could be used elsewhere to help others at
a greater value. ``Those are the hidden patients, the ones who benefit
from the things the NHS does spend money on,'' Littlejohns said.
NICE Review
NICE is reviewing its Aug. 7 preliminary recommendation that Sutent,
Roche Holding AG and Genentech Inc.'s Avastin, Bayer AG and Onyx
Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Nexavar, and Wyeth's Torisel shouldn't be funded
in light of their cost of 20,000 pounds to 39,000 pounds a year per
patient. All four medicines have been approved by European and U.S.
regulators and are sold in other countries as well. A final ruling is
expected in March.
While a drug is under review, the decision whether to pay for a therapy
falls to the NHS's 156 local organizations, called trusts.
Of the 3,000 applications for exceptional funding for cancer patients a
year, the most-requested drug was Sutent, said the Rarer Cancers Forum,
which focuses on cancer cases that fall outside the more common ones
such as colon, breast, lung and prostate.
Sutent, which stops cancer cells from dividing and chokes off a tumor's
blood supply, was first approved for European use in July 2006. Kidney
cancer sufferers taking the drug had a median survival rate of 26.4
months, according to a study presented at the American Society of
Clinical Oncology in May.
Five Years to Live
New York-based Pfizer provided NICE with Sutent cancer- survival data
that were released after its review began to try to persuade the agency
to reverse its decision, and has offered to make the first treatment
free, company spokeswoman Emily Bone said.
On Nov. 4, the government proposed giving NICE more flexibility in
approving higher-cost drugs and allowing patients to buy the medicines
themselves without losing access to government-funded health care.
Final recommendations on the proposals aren't due until early next year
and Rosser can't wait that long for his medicine, Spall said.
Rosser, of Kingswood, England, was diagnosed with cancer four days
after Emma was born in July 2007. After operations in August and March
to remove a kidney, adrenal glands and bone tumors, he was told he
might live two to five years. In July, he was told by doctors that
Sutent would help, but the South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust
said it wouldn't pay for the treatment.
`Very Expensive'
``I read the letter and I burst into tears,'' said Rosser, who was
forced to retire from his air-conditioning and sheet- metal company
because of the illness.
South Gloucestershire, the trust that includes Rosser's home, accepts
applications for Sutent funding only for exceptional cases, said Ann
Jarvis, director of commissioning at the trust, in an e-mail.
``Unfortunately for very expensive drugs, if they are proven to only
provide a small benefit we have to prioritize other treatments.''
The trust plans to review its Sutent policy at a meeting next month, spokeswoman Sue Pratt said today.
Kidney cancer patient Kathleen Devonport, a 65-year-old retired factory
worker, called it ``heartbreaking'' to have to beg her local health
officials to provide her with Sutent. The County Durham Primary Care
Trust, in northern England, initially turned her down in March 2007,
then agreed to supply the Sutent seven months later only after she
responded to a cheaper medicine paid for by an anonymous donation.
Offer Vetoed
Jenny Rosser, 41, said she is looking into getting her husband into a
clinical trial for Sutent, but so far she has been told that his cancer
would need to advance further to qualify.
Meanwhile, he is surviving on painkillers coupled with steroids for
inflammation after vetoing his wife's offer of selling the house to pay
for his treatments. In late October, he had another operation to remove
growths on his spine and neck.
Jenny Rosser said the policies seem aimed more at saving cash than treating people.
``It seems like a money-saving exercise,'' she said. ``If a patient dies, tough.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Bruce Rule in London at
; David Altaner in London at
[Last Updated: November 17, 2008, By David Altaner and Bruce Rule
Bloomberg]
End of Life / Euthanasia 
