Not sure if anyone has commented on or posted this ?
Words fail me. I just cannot explain how this makes me feel.
Julie
Hi Julie, I saw this on SKY News this morning, I felt sick , although I am still having treatment at the moment and all has gone well so far, I am still stage 4 and I suppose the treatment is prolonging my life ,I don’t know how long for, but I am hoping for many years to come, if they denied me treatment, I have Herceptin, I am sure my life would be shorter.Yet if I was an alcoholic or a drug user I could still get treatment !My sister just had a kidney transplant, this has undoubtably prolonged her life , nobody is suggesting stopping treatment for people waiting for transplants , I could go on but yet again Cancer is targeted for cuts, unbelievable !!!
Jean.
Hi
I have just read this article on line. I am shocked, outraged and frightened by it. We should respond in some way.
The root of the problem is that it costs money to keep us going, the longer we keep going the more we cost. New drugs are keeping us going longer.
When I was having treatment (HERCEPTIN) last week I mentioned to the nurse that I must be at number 50 and she sucked in her breath and said ooh expensive. She then saved herself a bit by saying but you are worth it.
I still have hope and some stuffy old bureaucrats is not going to take that away from me.
Alex
They’re talking about it now on This Morning…
I am in work…could you give us an update ?
If this is taken to the logical conclusion, then all modern medicine would cease - being brutal, everyone is dying from the day they are born!
I can understand a switch to palliative care at the very end of life, but with this disease who can say when we reach that stage - whilst there is still hope I truly hope we can all receive the best possible treatment.
Julie x
I’m guessing that Mr ****** & the other 36 experts don’t have cancer or they might have a different take on things. U can’t put a price on someone’s life, it’s disgusting & immoral.
[Edited by BCC]
Wow, this just makes me really sad! I can’t believe that I live in a world where some people value money more than people and life itself!!!
It’s also possible that the newspaper article does not accurately reflect what the report said. The BBC article has a very different take, quoting this from the report:
‘It adds: “Few treatments or tests are clear clinical winners, with many falling into the category of substantial cost for limited benefit.”’
This article also says the report queries whether some treatments are being tested as thoroughly as they should.
bbc.co.uk/news/health-15032862
I imagine that NHS Choices will have something on this report soon, as well.
Well as with anything in the Daily Mail the angle or slant should be questioned. Goes without saying 
Juliet - Holly, Phillip, Max Clifford and a psychologist were basically echoing what people are saying and thinking on here - that even if life is only extended for a matter of weeks it is worth the cost and the only instance that treatment should be stopped is if the patient themselves choose to stop. Max Clifford also said that it would be wrong if the only people to get life-extending treatment were those who could pay for it or those with private healthcare.
I think this article should not be taken at face value,like all media hype. Report was referring to all cancers across the board,not just BC. So very hard as it is there must come a point where a balance of benefit / cost must come into the equation.We tend to see only our own personal perspective/situation as do all with whatever illnesses they have.I believe that if there were more professional awareness and a different approach early diagnosis is the key to both patient health and effective use of funds.I can only speak of parts of europe where I have lived. There the approach is much more of - patient presents with odd/vague symptoms which could well indicate serious desease-then they first run tests to eliminate that-then move onto the more minor/mundane things it could be-but they check First for the more serious things.Here it does seem to be the opposite.
It is indeed the opposite - check for minor/routine causes and escalate if/when those are eliminated… Regarding the article… The Mail has a good front page headline! I saw it in the supermarket this mornign and stopped in my tracks… HOWEVER… I work in a hospital… and I do meet (and support) patients who are terminally ill, and are offered “treatment” and grab it only to find that their last days are spent feeling really ill from the chemo as well as the cancer… My complaint is that not enough information is given to them/us… “This might respond to treatment” - what exactly does that mean? Curative? Palliative? Will this prolong life? How long for? What sort of quality of life? Sometimes, with all the information, the right choice is to let go… and sometimes the right choice is to fighth to the last breath… but there needs to be choice - informed choice, and funded choice!
I realise that the Daily Mail have put their usual ‘scaremongering slant’ onto the report, but it does raise concerns that it is being discussed at all.
One question I did think is ‘what is terminal?’ I don’t consider myself to be terminal and with Breast cancer (as unfortunately has been confirmed too often recently)the 'end’can happen so quickly! and people can have an almost ‘normal’ quality of life right up to this point. Whereas with other cancers this isn’t the case. I do compare also to my Dad who died of Prostate Cancer, He lived without treatment for 9 weeks at a ‘terminal diagnosis’ we wouldn’t have wished any treatments on him, he slowly got weaker and weaker and was pain free.
Perhaps we should be looking at profit margins for the drug companies! Do the drugs really cost that much to produce? I know that research and testing etc need to be factored in, but over long periods of time they have to get cheaper surely.
I remember a while ago reading about withdrawing Avastin because ‘it only extended life by on average 5 months’ However for a young child about to lose his or her Mother that could be a first day at school, one more Christmas, a special birthday! Such precious memories in 5 months of extended life!
Don’t doctors make an oath to extend life wherever possible? surely a cancer patient wouldn’t be betrayed in such a disgraceful, immoral way…well we’ll have to hope not, the latest news doesn’t sound too promising!
I’ve just heard this being discussed on Radio 2 and it made me feel physically sick.
Long before I was diagnosed with stage 3 BC, I have believed in doing everything possible for cancer patients including new drugs etc. Every new drug seems to be a massive fight. No-one should be fighting for treatment when they have stage 4 cancer it’s plain wrong. There often seems to be some idea that anyone with stage 4 cancer is likely to be an 80 year old - we know that isn’t the case.
I used to be a nurse and I find the idea of not providing treatment to people who are very ill whether its cancer or something else utterly repugnant.
If you start on rationing services where do you stop and afterall why pick on cancer patients? How about weight loss surgery, the money spent on looking after drunks in A&E, provision of liver transplants for alcoholics, patching up people who do dangerous sports, look after people who don’t use condoms and get sexually transmitted diseases etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we shouldn’t care for all the above, but if you’re going to start picking about with the who should have what and for how long, it will get very messy.
Millions have been wasted on an IT project that many of us on the front line and many in IT said wouldn’t work. Thousands have been wasted on unnecessary projects whose outcomes haven’t led to changes.
Oh God don’t get me started…
Elinda x
You’re absolutely right Elinda… millions wasted on the IT budget etc etc… but (being devil’s advocate) rationing is a reality in the NHS - there isn’t enough to do everything possible for every person. That’s a fact unfortunately. Being OPEN about what we choose not to do is a brave step (and a vital one in my view). Cancer, it seems to me, is moderately well funded compared to some other life-threatening issues (like stroke). How you say to ANY patient, “sorry, your life is not worth (whatever it is)” I don’t know…
I do understand your point but I am just very wary of any suggestion that targets a certain group of patients in that way. Listening to the radio, it was clear that some people thought that terminal cancer patients were only ‘grannies’. You can imagine the outcry if that applied to their child or their wife. I wonder if the doctors suggesting this would feel the same if they could have an extra few months or so with a treatment.
It’s easy to convince the public that these massive savings will be made by targeting terminal cancer patients but the reality is different. Once that’s done - who’s next on the list? Anyone over a certain age perhaps? Or perhaps they think we should adopt a policy of not treating anyone whose condition is going to deteriorate? It’s appalling.
The waste in the NHS is phenomenal, you only have to watch Gerry Robinson. I could rant on for hours about how money could be better spent.
Elinda x
I agree. It’s one thing in the abstract to decide not to fund oh, cancer patients, alzheimer sufferers, people in ITU, very tiny babies, whatever… quite another thing when it’s you or someone you love and value… and almost EVERYONE is loved and valued by somebody! Abstract decisions apply to specific people… and it’s iniquitous. But unless they tackle the waste (and how that could be done nationally, I don’t know), there ain’t enough to go round, so we are left with post code rationing - which is also wrong!
I do agree with everything that has been said but my experience with my mum before she died does show another side. 10 years after her first diagnosis of breast cancer it returned as a tumour on her spine and by the time it was found it was too late to operate and the Dr’s gave her 3 months to live. Her treatment included chemo and dad nursed her at home for as long as he could but she eventually went into the new local hospice, which was quite near where they lived.
Mum was comfortable there and the family close by, but as her health deteriorated the Docs decided to give her some radiotherapy which meant she had to move to a hospice a difficult 40 min drive away for my dad. She died approx 3 weeks later.
I have always felt that the move and radiotherapy were pointless and just caused increased anxiety & stress for mum & dad for no real reason, and yes, the money could have been better spent.
Daisygirl - Yes, it should only be in consultation with the patient and sometimes doctors probably do need to be more straightforward about the potential benefits versus the stress particularly when it’s reached the stage of someone being in a hospice.
GIJaneH - I just think it’s easy to go for targets like cancer patients or alzheimers patients because of the all public misconceptions about those illnesses such as thinking they only effect the very old.
You’re absolutely right though that the postcode lottery is also a terrible and unfair thing.
I think perhaps what Nicky was saying about the profit margins of drug companies is a huge issue but not sure how that could be tackled. I’d like to know, for example, if these drugs cost the same in the rest of Europe. Elinda x