Patients 'should not expect NHS to save their life if it costs too much
The NHS should not always attempt to save someone's life if the cost is too much, the medical regulator has ruled.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Guidelines (Nice) has ruled for the first time that saving a life cannot be justified at any cost, in a review of its ethical guidelines.
Nice is facing growing criticism over the number of drugs it is now rejecting which are available throughout Europe and in America. Last week, it refused to sanction four kidney cancer drugs which can double life expectancy.
It has now rejected the so-called "rule of rescue" which stipulates that people facing death should be treated regardless of the costs. The rule is based on the natural impulse to aid individuals in trouble.
In a report on "social values judgement" the regulator says: "There is a powerful human impulse, known as the 'rule of rescue', to attempt to help an identifiable person whose life is in danger, no matter how much it costs. When there are limited resources for healthcare, applying the 'rule of rescue' may mean that other people will not be able to have the care or treatment they need.
It should be noted that the British system, always touted for it's fairness, is rejecting drugs that are being used everywhere else in the world. Yet here we have a system which is seemingly more worried about costs than our American system.
Nice is facing increasing accusations that it is giving undue weight to financial considerations - rather than medical benefits - when making decisions on whether to allow drugs or other treatments on the NHS. Doctors and patients have alleged that they are treated with contempt by the organisation and that life-saving drugs are being unfairly denied.
THE UGLY SPECTOR OF CAPITALISM STRIKES AGAIN!
The Daily Telegraph disclosed yesterday that Nice is preparing to offer patients advice on the medical benefits of drugs that are not available on the NHS. The disclosure is likely to anger patients who face paying tens of thousands of pounds for expensive drugs which may prolong their lives.
And why shouldn't it anger them? The system is supposed to cover all of their medical expenses, and the taxes are quite a bit higher to cover it. And yet, the system has created an Edwards-esque "Two Britains", one where the rich can buy medicines and live, and the other where the poor are just out of luck.
It's kinda clear that if we're really concerned about cheap, widely accessable health care...Britain is not the system we should follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment