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)
Written by
Gez_Blair
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
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.
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.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.