Ethical questions in NHS funding

Written by Vincent Cable MP and published in The Informer on Mon 11th Jun 2007

Growing numbers of constituents have sought my help having been denied drugs under NHS rationing.

Last week a young man in his 20s suffering from bowel cancer told me his life may hinge on a drug judged by the government agency, NICE, not to be cost effective 'except in exceptional circumstances'. If he is denied it, the alternative is private medicine costing tens of thousands of pounds; or giving up. Two young women, also in their 20s, have been denied the drug in other parts of London and now have little hope. I will press our local NHS to be more flexible. Terminal illness among the young is exceptional.

Several local women are campaigning to have herceptin to improve their survival chances with breast cancer. It is also denied in most parts of Britain following a ruling of NICE. Having lost my first wife, Olympia, to breast cancer I understand the emotional as well as clinical need for women to have treatment, if it improves quality and length of life.

Many older people are losing their sight because of macular degeneration. At present, expensive drugs will not be allowed to save one eye but they will if both are threatened: very rough justice, indeed.

Numerous Alzheimers sufferers could be helped - but not cured - by drugs like Aricept which are currently denied on cost grounds (outside Northern Ireland).

The Government is right in one respect. It is better to decide priorities scientifically rather than under pressure from drug companies or emotional appeals. But there must be a public, democratic, say in what the priorities are, since these are often a life or death matter. That is why I am urging residents and voluntary organisations to respond to the local NHS consultation on ethical questions.