Should Exotic Cancer Treatments be Provided by the NHS?

An interesting report came out today, regarding the National Cancer Fund.


It seems the initial aim was a laudible one, to provide expensive cancer treatments for patients with terminal cancer in an effeort to prolong their life. But in some cases the drugs actually shortened  their life, the exact opposite of the desired outcome.


But, it seems the outcomes didn't justify the cost. It's now been branded a waste of money. Like most knee-jerk reactions to public opinion.


This is what I've banged on about before: there needs to be a grown up debate on what the NHS is for and especially where the limits lie with respect to treatment. The NHS was initially designed to be a safety net, treating those that couldn't afford private doctor's bills.


As medical advancements have arrived, it's been assumed that the NHS will offer those as well, to the point it offers very expensive, world-class treatments courtesy of the tax payer. Can the NHS afford such expensive treatments, or should there be limits. Should people that want world-class medical care take out medical insurance instead of demanding the NHS provide it?


Take the case of the cancer drugs above. If the people are being used as Guinea Pigs for new cancer treatments, shouldn't the drug companies be funding the supply of the drugs out of their own pocket? Sure the NHS can supply the doctors and share the information gleaned from treatment, but why should the NHS actually be paying quite heavy costs for the supply of the drugs.


The fact that the outcomes in some cases were negative shows that these are not sure-fire treatments, that the drugs involved were administered without any clear benefit. In that case it's not treatment, it's a trial and the drug companies should be paying or supplying the drugs for free.


There also needs to be a debate about treatment for terminal patients. Should we be spending tens of thousands of pounds on exotic drugs to prolong the life of someone that is never going to recover? If it was a cure, then the cost may be justified, due to the reduced cost of ongoing treatment. But the money shouldn't be going into vastly expensive trials. Shouldn't that money be going into treatments with a more definate outcome and a long-term benefit, for instance hip and knee operations?


It seems to me a bit selfish for someone that already knows they are are terminally ill to demand from the NHS hideously expensive drugs on the off chance that they may (or more likely will not) extend their life by a few months at most, at the expense of providing a long-term (deceades-long) benefit to people that have other, cheaper treatments like hip and knee operations.


If you want that sort of top-class service, then buy medical insurance.


Of course I'm going to be whinged at by those that see this as a two-tier health service: the people able to afford health insurance will get better treatment, those that can't get bargain basement treatment on the NHS. But expecting the NHS to supply top-class service for the whole population is wrong too. Where does it stop? At what percentage of government expenditure do we say enough is enough?

Election Fever.

Well, 24 Hours ago Theresa May called a snap general election.

I can see why. There are many factions that see the PM as illegitimate. Because she wasn't voted into office, there's always that sneer that "she can't do that, she's not been elected to do it", despite her not changing the Tory direction by much and of course running with Brexit, something the people commanded Parliament to do through the referendum.

If the majority vote for the Tories again, it's a mandate to carry on with their style of Brexit. Not that there's any other flavour, other than giving in to every demand from the EU.

A mandate for the Tories will shut up the Lords. Those unelected bastards in the upper house that want to scupper the will of the people. Virtually every one of them a bag of vested corporate interests. If I had my way it would be illegal to be a director of any company and/or be paid by any company as an "advisor".

Finally of course, it'll shut up the stunted Scottish windbag Sturgeon (well here's hoping, she does like the sound of her own voice a bit too much unfortunately). Fingers crossed the Scottish coastal towns and cities will tell The Jimmy Krankie lookalike exactly what they think of getting their fishing rights back, only to give them away to Brussels again. (All I can say is thank feck Corbyn isn't the Labour leader in Scotland). Basically Sturgeon is a one-trick pony. Independence, independence, that's all she wants. Not that she has bugger all clue what she'd do with it if she got it anyway. She certainly has no idea of the cost to Scotland, that's for sure. But hey, I'm sure once the Barnett formula is abolished (the only thing keeping the miserable windbag in office and able to shout the odds) she'll love having to actually make her way in the world on her own. She's like the petulant daughter that you're about to kick out, just to make her realise the cost of living.

Of course this is a terrible blow for the Labour party. they are so disorganised and dysfunctional that they don't have a cat in hell's chance of winning. Hard core lefty support may surprise some people, but I think unfortunately that the majority of the Labour vote will go to the Liberals.

Despite what the Tories may think, I don't see Labour heartlands voting Tory. people there would rather slit their wrists than tick a Tory box on a voting form. Despite heavy pro-Brexit voting during the referendum, I believe that people won't think about that in the general election and will vote Liberal as a protest against wishy-washy London-centric Labour leadership.

If the election had been called just after the referendum, then the Liberals and Labour would have been in real trouble as the majority of the voting would have gone to UKIP. Months of division, skullduggery and loss of focus within UKIP means they won't pick up a fraction of the votes they got at the last election.

But UKIP's reason for existing (getting out of the EU) is an almost done deal. The only way I can see UKIP keeping votes is to stir up uncertainty about the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.  If UKIP can convince voters to vote for them and get them in a position so they can keep the Tories honest and keep Brexit on track, then they may succeed.

But despite the Liberals being anti-Brexit and against the majority of the people, I see them making gains unfortunately. I'm not sure how that will play out in the cut and thrust of Brexit. I mean, a re-invigorated pro-EU anti-democratic Liberal party might just grab enough headlines to fuck things up. Who knows?

That may be the downside of this election for Theresa May.

What Has Sweden Done to Deserve This?

What has Sweden ever done to deserve a terror attack of their very own, a number of people being killed yesterday in a truck attack?

Well, despite allowing in thousands of Islamic migrants that is.

Unless it's because of the 900 or so troops deployed to Afghanistan as part of task force 47 and the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar I Sharif.

But maybe allowing thousands of migrants into your country that may feel some affiliation to those people they see as oppressed by you may not have been the smartest move.

That's despite you "only" being part of a rebuilding force.

That's despite whatever you think that Islam is a "just" religion and not also a political ideology.

In fact if you start to look at the less publicised countries involved in Afghanistan as part of ISAF, then a pattern emerges. Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway, Finland, and to a lesser extent Luxembourg, Romania, the list goes on.

Look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force and look at the list of participating nations.

Now tell me there isn't a very strong link. Maybe someone in Afghanistan holds a grudge. Someone with the ability and money to organise and finance a large number of people. As the only major source of revenue in Afghanistan at that time was Opium, then I'd hazard a guess that's where the source of the grievance lies.

Whatever.

It's all down to lone wolves and religion.

Maybe looking at the countries that haven't had their own Islamic terror attack may shed some light on the issue. Where were't they and what weren't they involved in?