added June 19 2007

Report as offensive

added June 21 2007

I think it's absolutely disgusting that the NHS should hold back on any treatment that might prevent an elderly gentleman losing his sight. If medication is available to treat any serious condition whether it be life threatening, or in this case, 'quality of life threatening', then the NHS has a duty of care to the population to provide it.

Report as offensive

added June 21 2007

If this was an isolated incident, it could be accepted as a glitch in the system. I edit Mature Times and I have had many really tragic personal stories sent to me - including one from a man whose father waited - waited - and waited for help, then lost his sight completely. In the end he stopped eating and died from the effects of malnutrition. Yes there's a limited amount of money we can spend within the NHS, but a few thousand pounds spent on medicine will save tens of thousands in care costs down the line. This isn't just unjoined up thinking; this is the economics of the madhouse. This is OUR money that is being spent - how many taxpayers would begrudge paying for this man's treatment? The more cases that can come to light, the more chance we have of changing this outrageous situation. Tony Watts, Editor Mature Times

Report as offensive

added June 22 2007

Does no-one question the cost of the drugs as designated by the drug companies (and the NHS). I feel particularly aggrieved as I see how many people are raising money for drug research. Drug companies benefit from this but do not reflect this in the price of drugs. Also, when I worked at University of Michigan Med Center they dropped their drugs bill tremendously when they switched to generic drugs. Is this not an option for the NHS? I agree that it is totally unacceptable to refuse medication which would prevent people from going blind. There is no point doing the research if we do not have the benefits.

Report as offensive

added June 22 2007

The point about the cost of drugs is a very valid one. My brother has just been told that if he wants to have the drug to give him a 40% chance of surviving kidney cancer, as opposed to no chance with the other option (it would not react well with the steriods he is on) he will have to pay himself - £9000 for three months. He is a pensioner, and was actually given a false all-clear by the hospital six months ago after months of tests. If the pharmas made the prices more realistic, surely the NHS would buy more of them?

Report as offensive

added June 22 2007

Dear Steve, Thankyou for airing this vital debate. My point is a simple one: surely the pensioners in this country who have paid in for decades to our NHS, often fought for the country - be it National Service or otherwise - endured hardships during the post-war years DESERVE treatment for blindness, regardless of the arguments over drug costs? If the NHS can casually 'lose millions over mismanagement of a building (as happened this year), with no come-back, then there ARE millionsto be spent on our older folk. Incidentally, I am not a pensioner, but continue to be appalled at how funds built up by that generation are so wasted. It borders on the criminal, yet no-one seems to take responsibility.

Report as offensive

added June 22 2007

If the statement below is 100% true - (source Manchester Evening News 14/6/07) then I feel we must ask the Board of NICE and the Secretary of State for Health to resign! "Joanna Potts, business unit director of ophthalmology for Novartis, which markets Lucentis in the UK, said: "The clinical and health economic data supports the use of Lucentis in all types of wet AMD and for both the first and second eye affected, yet Nice appear to have ignored this robust body of evidence." People pay up front with no opt out clause for NHS treatments - what is happening here is akin to an insurance company refusing to pay out on legitimate claims. I hope one of the people affected takes the government to the European court for breach of contract. D. Sandbach Formenr NHS CEO - Princess Royal Hospital Telford.

Report as offensive

added July 03 2007

Report as offensive

added July 14 2007

IS THYROID DISEASE TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE NHS TO TREAT? 12th July 2007 - Doctors giving evidence at the GMC Fitness to Practise hearing of Dr Gordon B Skinner taking place in Manchester have stated that if patients are given thyroid hormone it would cost the NHS a lot of money. Dr Skinner is before the GMC because he treats patients with thyroid hormone when they have apparently “normal” blood test results. He has successfully treated many patients, some diagnosed with CFS/ME. One GMC doctor stated, ‘This patient is 40 years old and it would mean that she would get all of her medications free of charge for life’. None of the complaints to the GMC regarding treatment were from patients and none of the doctors giving evidence has said that patients have been harmed. In some cases the doctors who have complained are continuing treatment because the patients are now well. Others have stopped treatment with the result that the patients are now seriously ill again. Ironically, treatment for hypothyroidism is very inexpensive especially compared to prolonged treatment for the many individual symptoms. Symptoms of an underactive thyroid include tiredness, cold intolerance, weight gain, dry skin, intestinal problems, depression and often a constellation of other seemingly unrelated signs and symptoms which are often dismissed by doctors (including Professor A.Weetman, President of the British Thyroid Association and the GMC Expert Witness in this case), as somatoform disorders. These symptoms are often treated with inappropriate medication, particularly anti-depressants. If these patients do have hypothyroidism, it would be considerably less expensive for the NHS to treat them with thyroid medication than it would be to send them to a succession of different specialists, to pay them benefits because they are unable to work and to prescribe a cocktail of expensive drugs such as Prozac, statins, HRT and Amiodarone, which often prove ineffective and sometimes downright dangerous. Professor Weetman admitted that some of his evidence was theoretical and speculation and when asked why Dr Skinner’s patients were getting well, he stated that this was due to his warmth, empathy with the patient and the placebo effect. The panel questioned him saying “If it was the placebo effect, surely there would be a blanket effect in respect of symptoms and not just some of the symptoms would disappear.” Lyn Mynott, chair of Thyroid UK, states, “There is a lot of controversy about the reliability of the thyroid function test, presently the only one accepted by the medical profession, but now some doctors believe that the present form of blood testing is not reliable enough.” Thyroid UK is undertaking a study to find which test best correlates with symptoms – saliva, urine or blood. She states, “Other types of testing, as used in the US and some parts of Europe, seem to correlate much better with symptoms than the standard blood tests and so we felt we should conduct a study to confirm which is best.” The GMC is also planning to take action against other doctors who are successfully treating hypothyroid patients whose blood thyroid levels are “normal” but who are still suffering with hypothyroid symptoms. If the GMC were to prevent these doctors from helping these patients, the cost of providing state benefits for them would explode and the cost to the NHS of prescribing ineffective drugs would be immeasurable. ENDS Dawn www.thyroid-disease.org.uk

Report as offensive

added July 16 2007

Outrageous. Has medical science laboured for centuries to extend lives only now to allow the elderly to languish in unnecessary blindness?

Report as offensive