why are we funding medical research?

@cath 55 wrote:

I heard this morning that the powers that be are going to limit the use of a drug for alzheimers ……apparently this drug prolongs a symptom free period in sufferers of this condition. There reasoning for limiting use is that this drug doesnt actually cure the alheimers………wots that all bout then???????

We have all also heard news reports of late about postcoded treatment, how some cancer vicitms cannot recieve revolutionary new drugs etc………

My point is there cant be many people who havent given to the various medical research charities, so why are we giving if it is almost a case of russian roulette as to whether you will get the treatment anyway?

hugsssssss xxxx

I don’t know much about the drugs Cath, but I do agree with you, in that they do prolong a sympton free period so achieving a better quality of life for the sufferer.

There’s no actual ”cure” for cancer. There are various treatments, some of which I received myself and i’m in remission, but thats all they can do. The threat is always there that it could come back, in a lot of cases it does.

Cancer treatment does itself, become a postcode lottery, and it’s exactly like the authorities playing russian roullette with peoples lives and it’s sooooo wrong!!!

A couple of weeks ago, I read in one of the newspapers, I can’t remember which one, but on the same page, was the story about John Prescott, having technically been sacked, but keeping his salary, and all the other things that make his life comfortable. The other story was about a woman who had died, lost her battle with cancer, the night before. She left behind, a husband and children. She was 26. Her local NHS authority had refused to fund her treatment. The story was obviously done for effect, but for me it worked, it had the desired effect of thinking that I hope John Prescott enjoys his luxury, I hope too that one day, he will be given no other choice, than to have to play the game of russian roullette with his own life.

Maybe, Pikey there is some fact in recognising that there can never and will never be enough money in the pot to fund every treatment for every illness.

BUT, as someone who works in the health service, dont kid yourself that any decisions made upon who receives what is based on anything other than financial rationale. Patient outcome and patient benefit are not a consideration.

@slayer wrote:

Maybe, Pikey there is some fact in recognising that there can never and will never be enough money in the pot to fund every treatment for every illness.

BUT, as someone who works in the health service, dont kid yourself that any decisions made upon who receives what is based on anything other than financial rationale. Patient outcome and patient benefit are not a consideration.

Agreed, Slayer, but availability of resources are obviously part of the triage system in every situation – micro or macro. If by spending a million pounds on one patient you don’t have enough money to treat one hundred others then the decision makes itself.

I didn’t say it was unfair, Slayer, I said it was obviously part of the triage system. Available resources, including but not exclusively pure cost itself, must inform the process.