The Telegraph UK reports that the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) previously said that four kidney cancer drugs “would not be made available…because they were too expensive and did not extend life beyond a few months in most cases,” and even after the drugs “were looked at again under new rules,” Nice said “three out of the four drugs were still not cost effective.” Nice approved Sutent (sunitinib malate), but rejected Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib) and Torisel (temsirolimus). “Charities have said the ruling is disappointing as it means patients who do not respond to Sutent…do not have any other drugs to try.” The Telegraph also notes that the “rules which allow Nice to pass more expensive drugs if they are for small patient populations at the end of life do not apply if the drug is already licensed for other conditions.” A very convenient bureaucratic rule to deny healthcare.
I think that the following quote regarding “end of life criteria” is particularly interesting given the recent discussion of “end of life” counseling in HR 3200.
John Melville, General Manager of Roche UK, said: “This decision is entirely illogical and neither addresses the needs of patients with renal cancer, nor advances the innovation agenda. Avastin demonstrates the same value to the NHS as sunitinib and this guidance goes against the spirit of end of life criteria which were devised for this very setting.”
Patients and families should be having medical discussions with their physicians, but when government bureaucrats get involved, family wishes take a back seat.
Charlie,
Most sane people are appalled at the logic of European health care systems.
One case in point being Sweden, which on the one hand orders the Health care system to subsidize Viagra for one man, the court’s logic being that the man’s life was substandard unless he could be guaranteed a sex life. On the other hand, the court refuses to grant a life saving drug to a precariously ill man–even though he offered to pay for the drug himself. The court opined that it would be unfair to others who could not afford the drug for someone else to have access to it. It’s all about equality, you see.
Trust me, I’m not making this stuff up.
But as perplexing (and revolting) as the moral standards of Sweden’s health care system and England’s NICE are, the US is now also facing similar moral logic as regards difficult medical cases involving the elderly and disabled.
While these moral issues deserve utmost attention, I think we should note that the moral presuppositions behind end of life counseling are but a tip of the ideological iceberg, as the statist causes espoused by our current administration are far more inclusive and far more deadly.
Victor David Hanson agrees, opining that the real goal of the Obama administration is a radical egalitarianism that would completely realign American society long statist lines. I tend to agree with him:
Here’s the link to his incredibly insightful piece:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWQ2NWJkN2M3ZmJjYWQwMDZlMWQyM2FjNWI4ZWJkNGI=
In the meantime, end of life issues deserve to be addressed; and thank you, Charlie for bringing the issues to our attention. I am currently working on a piece on life issues which I’ll post on Facebook, hopefully by week’s end.
Hmmm…How well I recall those who espoused and got the legalization of abortion on demand in the 1970s ridiculing us “deluded” pro-lifers for our concerns that the next weak and helpless groups to be disregarded and attacked by an anti-life mentality would be the disabled and the elderly.
Well, well….
Fay Voshell