which looks like its heading to the law books
telegraph.co.uk/health/saat...
Will it lead to life-saving innovative treatments for dying patient, or is it a license for quacks to dole out dangerous and untested drugs to vulnerable people? (Or a bit of both)
The coverage by the Telegraph in particular - Saatchi's "media partner" - has been misleading in the extreme. There is no requirement for this bill. It would not increase innovation, since current law already allows innovative treatments. It would, however, remove patient safeguards, allowing a doctor to go ahead with a treatment which no responsible body of medical opinion would allow. It would not be restricted to dying patients and could be used to justify wildly experimental treatment even where an effective treatment already exists. It could even hinder research, by deterring patients from taking part in clinical trials.
With amendment after amendment and with the confusing PR spin coming from the Saatchi team, it can be hard to keep track of it all but as far as I can tell, the same problems have remained from the beginning. I recommend stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/ for up to date news on this and for more detailed arguments by people who know their stuff.
Just picking up this topic after 7 weeks with sporadic internet access! Did the govt ever publish the consultation responses?
Here we are: gov.uk/government/consultat...
This is a piece of ego legislation from an arch marketing entrepreneur that is trying to solve a problem about innovative treatment that doesn't exist except in his own imagination. It is a quacks charter the kind of which we thought was dispensed with 300 years ago when the enlightenment came along. If this gets through we are shamed as a modern country. Disgraceful.
The committee stage in the House of Lords in on now. Watch here: parliamentlive.tv/Main/Play...
