Maurice Saatchi’s Medical innovation Bill has caused controversy and inspired a passionate debate on how doctors and scientists can and should speed up medical advance for currently incurable diseases.
The Bill is designed to do two things. First, it will offer clarity and confidence to doctors who want to innovate and move away from standard procedures.
When might that be relevant? In most cases standard procedures work and innovation is unnecessary. There is a vast quantity of scientifically validated data which supports standard medical procedures.
But in some cases – specially for rare and incurable diseases – there is little scientific data and no effective treatments. In such cases, a doctor and the patient may face a choice, between applying the standard treatments, even though they are known not to work and will lead only to death, or to try something new.
A good example is around ebola. WHO issued guidelines to doctors saying they could offer untested treatments to patients who would otherwise die. It is worth noting that one of the doctors o the WHO panel, Prof Peter Smith from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, states there are obvious parallels between the WHO guidance and the Medical Innovation Bill.
Doctors, with their patients’ consent, who do want to innovate will of course need some evidence that the innovative treatment may make a difference. And there is a risk. If the treatment fails – as it may well do – doctors may face a negligence claim and disciplinary action. Such an action is, of course, defensible in law. A doctor will need to get the support of other relevantly qualified practitioners to say they would have tried the same procedure.
But this means having the threat of legal action hanging over the doctor who seeks to innovate. For many this fear is a break on innovation.
The Medical Innovation Bill, then, allows the doctor to get support from doctors in advance of the innovative treatment, so that the doctor and patient has legal clarity and confidence before the treatment starts.
The Bill also makes it a requirement to register innovative treatments – including their results – so that other doctors and researchers can learn from and build on this new data.
Even when doctors do innovate today, data is not collected and shared in a central database. That has to be wrong.
Doctors don’t to have to use the Bill – the Bill leaves the current common law in place. It gives doctors a choice.
What else will it do? It will help change the culture around innovation. In a world of increasing medical litigation, medical students are told they will be sued at least once during their careers. This increases the culture of defensive medicine.
When a patient is dying, some will want to be assured that their doctor can, and has, tried everything. And if the treatment fails, rather like the organ donor who in death leaves a legacy to others, they will know their treatment has added to the sum of scientific knowledge. Over and over terminal patients have told us they want to know their deaths meant something and helped others.
I, too have an axe to grind and I should be clear to you about that. As well as working for Lord Saatchi advocating for the Bill, I also have a rare cancer. It affects so few people that there is little data on new treatments and currently, it is incurable.
The Bill has been debated four times in the Lords and now has unanimous support from all parties and cross benchers. It is now due to come to the Commons. But is needs Coalition agreement for time to be found before the election.
I urge you to encourage Lib Dem Whips to agree to time being found – even if you don’t support the Bill.
It is the Liberal way. There must be debate. It is wrong that a Bill that has so much public support, faces termination not on the floor of the Commons, but by administrative fiat.
UPDATE 16:36: This post was updated to include a paragraph about Dominic’s interest in the Bill.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
* Dominic Nutt was a former local and national print journalist. In 1999 he became a communications specialist and worked for aid agencies including Save the Children and Christian Aid. He covered humanitarian and man-made disasters, including famines, floods and earthquakes and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Lebanon. He has contributed pieces to The Guardian, Express, Telegraph and BBC Radio 4 – many from overseas. He is a campaigner for the marginalised, fighting for human rights and justice.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Getting things done - Colinton Place #dundeewestend
Have cyber criminals been swindling taxpayers?
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Nonconformistradical
Alex Macfie
Daniel Walker
Steve Trevethan
Alex Hosking
64 Comments
It is somewhat suprising to see this post described as ‘The Independent View’ when the writer heads the PR team set up by Lord Saatchi to promote the Bill. The advertising business man, Maurice Saatchi, has roped in the Daily Telegraph to be its ‘official medial partner’ and the Bill has been promoted there in glowing terms. Only Peter Oborne has written against the editorial line there.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-hills/lord-saatchi-and-medical-anecdote-pr-machine
This article contains many misrepresentations of what the Bill contains or is about. The main one is that there is a general fear of litigation that prevents doctors from innovating. No evidence has been put forward for this. Organisations that ought to be most concerned about this issue say there is no problem – the BMA, the GMC and the Medical Defense Union. Indeed, there is near universal concern amongst medical, legal and academic bodies that the Bill will muddy the waters and make it harder to innovate.
Nutt claims there has been unanimous cross-party support for the Bill. There has only been one proper deomcratic vote on the Bill so far and that was in the Welsh Assembly where they unanimously rejected it (54 against, 0 for). All parties agreed that the Bill would be harmful.
The Bill, if it is to be passed, needs extensive scrutiny and modification. There are many who think that is difficult and pointless as the Bill is based on a false assumption. The LibDems can do there bit here and ensure that this Bill is not just nodded thrugh or given cursory scrutiny. Patients will be harmed by this Bill as there right to redress, should something go wrong, will be removed by this ill though out and unnecessary Bill.
I am a founding member of the Stop The Saatchi Bill Alliance.
http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/
The Bill is opposed by pretty much all of the major medical bodies (GMC, BMA, Royal Colleges), both of the main medical protection bodies (MDU, MPS), and some of the most important research organisations (Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK) – precisely the groups that should most benefit from this proposed legislation. This should tell you just how flawed it is.
The author is actually a key member of the Bill’s team (see here: http://medicalinnovationbill.co.uk/who-are-the-medical-innovation-bill-team/).
For a counter view, including links to the views of the bodies listed above and many more, see http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk. You ,might also want to seek the views of Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert.
This is flannel. The bill does not have such support. See http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/. It has almost unanimous opposition from informed commentators. There are no legal barriers to innovation that this Bill will address. It will not lead to creativity. Such controversial legislation changing the very boundaries of the doctor-patient relationship should not be passed ‘on the nod’ without the full scrutiny of the Commons. It is bad to remove protections from patients, confusing to doctors and will lead to more work for lawyers.
Regrettable that Dominic Nutt’s bio at the foot of the article doesn’t mention that he’s also paid by Maurice Saatchi to be PR director for the Medical Innovation Bill, a Bill opposed by (among others) the General Medical Council, Cancer Research UK, Academy Of Medical Royal colleges, British Medical Association, Wellcome Trust, and Motor Neurone Disease Association on the grounds that (among others) it is unnecessary and removes patient protections and patients’ right of redress if they are harmed.
Can I just point out what “The Independent View” slot is about? From the bottom of the article:
“‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. ”
Clearly whoever writes will have a particular view on any issue. If the Stop the Saatchi Bill supporters wanted to write a piece, then they could to. I just thought it would be an interesting debate for our readers – and it’s not as if the article isn’t open to criticism.
What’s missing from this piece is the declaration of interest stating that Dominic Nutt and his team are paid by Lord Saatchi to promote this unnecessary and dangerous Bill.
But the other facts missing from this article are equally interesting. For example, the fact that the Bill is opposed by the BMA, the GMC, the MDU, the MPS, all the medical Royal Colleges, Cancer UK, the NHS Health Research Authority, the NHS Litigation Authority, patients groups, research organisations, etc, etc, etc. The long list can be found here: http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/what-do-doctors-lawyers-and-medical-charities-say/
Oh, as well as over 100 of the UK’s top cancer specialists: http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/over-100-of-the-uks-leading-cancer-specialists-oppose-the-saatchi-bill/
And Sir Robert Francis: http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/damning-report-by-sir-robert-francis-qc/
And, if you believe Nutt’s claim that the Bill has unanimous support in Westminster, you might like to read what Dr Sarah Wollaston MP and Dr Julian Huppert MP had to say about it in the House of Commons: http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/the-medical-anecdote-bill/
I could go on, but you can read more on our website: http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/ including a very clear breakdown of what the Bill actually says – not what some might like you to think it says – and how the Bill will not promote responsible innovation but will encourage irresponsible experimentation: http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/treatment-under-the-saatchi-bill/
Declaration of Interest: I am a founder member of the Stop the Saatchi Bill Alliance. We are a collaboration of physicians, surgeons, lawyers, journalists, broadcasters, academics, experts, bloggers and patients. We receive no external funding and are all voluntary members who contribute time and expertise without remuneration due to shared, serious concerns about the proposed Medical Innovation Bill’s effects on patient safety and the law. So far, we have spent less than £85 on our ‘campaign’ plus some stationery costs that I’ve still to work out. For full details, see here: http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/about/
Caron,
While what you say is true it still leaves 2 issues:
1) the author has a massive undeclared conflict of interest.
2) since highly partisan contributors can write for this column you must admit it’s a misleading title.
Next up “The Independent View – why sweets must be eaten by everybody” by Bertie Bassett.
Dear Caron Lindsay – you miss the point.
Your strap line is “Not paid for by trade unions or millionaires.” This article is and it is not declared.
This is a dangerous bill, and has very little support, despite the best efforts of the PR agencies. It is certainly not true to say that ‘it has unanimous support from all parties and cross benchers’.
The argument that we should allow time for it to be debated, whatever we think, is clever – but why this particular proposal rather than all the others that are queued up looking for time? There are 42 scheduled for friday week (including some I’m co-sponsoring). Why try to force through this one with insufficient time, when it is opposed so broadly?
As others have said Dominic Nutt has not declared his interest as being paid as head of the Bills PR team to promote this Bill. If he really wanted the Bill to be debated and properly considered then why try and try and rush this through on the Second Reading in the House of Commons. Most of what Dominic says in this piece is competely inaccurate , he does not understand the law he is trying to change, and he does not appear to understand the dangerous implications of this Bill.
Julian Huppert is right the extent of opposition by doctors, patients and charities is staggering yet their voices are being totally ignored. Time and time we hear from Dominic Nutt that Bill will help doctors innovate new cures for cancer and other illnesses. Yet doctors have told him loud and clear ; they don’t want the bill, they don’t need the bill; the bill may cause harm to patients; the bill will impede Innvation. Why won’t he listen and why won’t his boss Lord Saatchi listen to them ?
@Andy Lewis your comment : “Your strap line is “Not paid for by trade unions or millionaires.” This article is and it is not declared.”
is simply not true. Saatchi hasn’t paid for it to appear.
I agree that Dominic Nutt should have declared his interest though.
Yes it is true that there are many doctors opposed to the Bill, but this is by no means unanimous. As one would expect there are voices on both sides of this debate – but many opponents of this Bill focus not on the debate but on personal attacks on Maurice Saatchi and his personal history in advertising. A number of senior oncologists, as well as patient advocates and researchers have argued in favour of the Bill in an open letter the Telegraph,. The full-text of the letter is avialable here: http://www.anticancer.org.uk/2015/02/open-letter-medical-innovation-bill.html.
Surely the key point is that the many issues raised by the Bill are worthy of discussion and that to simply close down the debate is not the right way to win the argument.
Simon – I’m not suggesting LibDemVoice got any of the money.
This Bill is needed for terminal Ill patients that have no hope for standard treatment,to survive. This bill will allow these patients a last ditch hope for a cure. If your Wife husband parent or a Child was given weeks to live and they were offered this service they would grab it. And if it was your decision to live or die then YOU would grab it also. So you must support this Bill because Next week you may need it. Think on.
This Bill has unanimous support from the Duchenne community, as well as many other rare disease groups I have spoken to in my role as a rare disease charity founder. The bill has been well debated and amended in the House of Lords, it is now time for The Commons to have their say via a debate, if it is to get debated and thrown out so be it but to not debate it would be a travesty. Many disease groups like Duchenne have no options for treatment currently and all we ask is for open debate and the opportunity at a chance to save and extend the lives of our children.
Ray – your plea completely misses the purpose of the Saatchi. There is no ‘service’ in the Bill that allows terminalli ill patients to access treatments that were previously unavailable to you.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow doctors immunity from negligence claims if they give you a treatment that no responsible body of medical opinion would support. If I was terminally ill, I would not want to work with any doctor who was prepared to treat under the Saatchi conditions. It would be a clear sign willingness to enter into reckless improvisation rather than responsible innovation.
Ray, you make it sound as if the NHS has dozens of legitimate potential cures for Stage 4 cancer just waiting to be tried on patients, except for some fear that their relatives will sue if the cure doesn’t work. Well, it doesn’t. But a whole host of quacks and charlatans are willing to take the money of distressed people on the “one in a million” chance that their brand of magic water might save your loved ones. This bill will enable them to get away with the most appalling abuses of vulnerable people (suffering from any medical condition whatsoever), and it will save precisely zero lives.
Alex. I am not sure what you say is true.
For example, the motor neurone disease association have said that,
“It is the bedrock of medical ethics that treatments must be both safe and
efficacious, and these principles serve well to strike a balance that allows
scientifically proven new treatments to be promoted without making it easy to
exploit vulnerable people with a serious illness. We fear that the provisions of this
Bill could undermine this position, and unintentionally open the door to the
exploitation of people with MND.
Even if our fears were to prove unfounded, we must also observe that the Bill
would not remedy the problem it is aimed at, for such a problem does not exist:
uncertainty around the law or fear of litigation do not, as far as we can see,
dissuade doctors from trying new treatments. It is certainly the case that such
factors are not at all the reason for the lack of curative treatments for MND.”
What treatments do the Duchenne community feel are being withheld and why are they being withheld? How will the Bill allow those treatments suddenly to be safely and responsibly offered to patients?
You in the above comments really dont understand what we patients that are terminal have to go through. having been told I was terminal and 3 monthst to live only make me comfortable. So 4 lines of chemo 4×6 I was proving them wrong. all that sickness and my body breaking down. Unable to have the latest trials as I was to Toxic. I had to bang on so many doors for treatment and the NHS had to stick to what was licensed. I had a glimmer of hope and 3 of us got on a Phase 1 trial at the Innovation Hospital The Royal Marsden. Im classed as Private now and the trial has only worked for me for mesothelioma. Everyone should have a chance for my trial. Its so unfair when others need the chance I have been lucky to have, We need the Bill to make the latest drugs available. We sign to say we wont sue.
Dominic Nutt Speaks for all the Patients in this country he doesnt deserve to be ridiculed he deserves Praise. and Boy do I Praise him and Lord Saatchie .
““At the moment, the doctor’s hands are tied – by concerns about professional reputation and potential negligence claims. That needs to change.”” Lord Woolf, Former Lord Chief Justice Source – Telegraph
This is a fascinating argument. Could anyone from the very articulate and persuasive “anti” side explain what they think the Saatchi lobby are actually trying to achieve, if their declared aim makes no sense? Surely, somebody must believe they have something to gain from this bill?
Malcolm, of course we cannot know the mind of Saatchi, we can only go by what he has said and what his team says.
Saatchi claims his belief is driven by grief – the death of his wife. If so, the Bill is just misguided and ill informed – but due to the power of the PR team behind it has gained much more traction that perhaps it otherwise would.
There are thos, however, who would benefit intentionally or otherwise from a massive loosening of legal protection for patients . Quacks are one group who spring to mind – and the homeopaths etc have been out in force to promote the Bill.
The other group who might benefit are Big Pharma themselves who could more easily push unproven but profitable so-called orphan drugs to patient groups.
Open Democracy explored the links between Big Pharma and the Saatchi Bill campaign here…
https://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anne-williams/maurice-saatchi-his-medical-innovation-bill-and-booming-%E2%80%98orphan-drugs%E2%80%99-mark
Andy Lewis the patient will also gain. If your family were terminal ill you would move heaven and earth for them so please let the patient decide what we would or would not like to do.
Mavis – I am not attempting to stop patients doing anything. The Saatchi Bill though is attempting to stop patients suing if things go wrong.
It is also completely wong to think that patients have only anything to gain from untested treatments. Most new treatments fail – they do not work or have very serious side effects. For any new treatment given under the Saatchi Bill it is more likely to harm than not.
As Professor Michael Baum has frequently said when speaking out against the Bill, “We must never forget that in the real world there are many patients we can’t cure but none that we can’t hurt.”
He goes on to say,
“The very idea that there are “treatments” out there for which the patient has nothing to lose, is also a myth. All treatments have side effects and if untested not only are we ignorant of their efficacy but also of their toxicity. When we, the experts, have run out of options and judge that care rather than cure is in the best interest of the patient, it is cruel as well as foolish to believe that some maverick might have a magic potion. ”
http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/prof-baums-concerns-about-the-saatchi-bill/
Drugs will not go untested thats not what the bill is about. We just need the red tape to be cut. Why do we have to retest drugs that have been passed in another country . Why do we have to go through Placebos when they are proven to work in other countries. This Bill will cause a much needed shake up. It is being approached very sensible in my opinion. Quote ——–However under the new bill, a body of medical experts would decide before the treatment so that the doctor was not left wondering if he or she might appear in court.
Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, has been asked by the health secretary to decide how this would work in practice. He is due to report back this week.
“The Bill simply brings the Bolam defence forward – to the clinic – and cuts out the fear of the long, stressful court case, said Mr Nutt.
The new Bill has been slightly amended so that doctors cannot carry out untested treatment for research purposes, but only in the best interest of the patient.
Lord Saatchi, who introduced the bill in December 2012, said: “Over the past few months, in one of the largest public consultations ever undertaken in this country, the people have agreed that there is a problem with how we are treating some of the sickest in our society.
“We have a culture of defensive medicine in the NHS, a culture created by the fear of litigation that hangs over doctors. Last year, the health service paid £1.2 billion in lawsuits.
“The Bill has obviously touched a nerve. Why? Because people know that all cancer deaths are wasted lives
“If the Bill receives Royal Assent after scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, good doctors will be protected and encouraged by the law.
I fear that this is one more example of the pervasive influence of lobbyists in our political system. There are literally hundreds of paid political lobbyists in Britain for each and every one of our MPs. Similarly, the total earnings of all ou MPs are dwarfed by the total earnings of lobbyists, who are paid to persuade those MPs to act in ways which help their business interests.
http://www.theprostitutestate.co.uk/page2.html
One of the keys to successful lobbying is to find a sympathetic front for the activity, and make that the basis for publicity. In this case, everybody can relate to and sympathise with the grief of a man whose wife has died. Whether his fellow travellers have equally sympathetic motives, and whether they have all reached valid conclusions about medical innovation, is a different question entirely.
Mavis, I will try to addressyour many points.
The only red tape that is being cut is a patient’s right to sue a doctor. The Bill does not address any other areas of ‘red tape’ that may hinder getting new treatments to patients sooner. For example, it says nothing about licensing or regulation of drugs or when unlicensed drugs can be used (they can already be given to patients under current laws).
The Bill does not require a ‘body of medical experts’ to say if a doctor could end up in court. It only rquires a doctor concult another doctor before treatment. That other doctor need not see the patient, their notes or even agree that the treatment is a good idea.
The Bill does not ‘bring foreward the Bolam defense”. It removes it for patients whose doctor choose to seek a Saatchi Defense.
The idea that any ‘innovative treatment’ undertaken under the Bill should not be ‘for research purposes, but only in the best interest of the patient” exposes the irartional thinking in the Bill. How can we innovate without research? How can we know the best interests of a patient when using untested treatments? The answer to both these questions is that we cannot.
Lord Saatchi was stretching reality somewhat when he proclaimed that “the people have agreed that there is a problem with how we are treating some of the sickest in our society”. There were 170 responses to the Saatchi Bill consultation: over 100 of them showed opposition to the Bill. Only 37 responses showed absolute support.
As for negligence claims in the NHS running to £1.2 Billion, no one has showed that this figure is preventing doctors from innovating – the whole purpose of the bill. Such action does though stop doctors from being reckless or improvising. The Bill will not help the good doctors but will only help the negligent ones.
In reply to Malcolm Todd I’ve written a blog on that very issue: http://lowellism-graham.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-saatchi-billderegulatinging-drug.html My belief is that Lord Saatchi is a free market fundamentalist who genuinely believes any government intervention, even testing if drugs are safe, interferes with the ‘magic of the market’. Though his financial interests in pharma shouldn’t be forgotten too https://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anne-williams/maurice-saatchi-his-medical-innovation-bill-and-booming-%E2%80%98orphan-drugs%E2%80%99-mark
This bill has enormous support from those of us living with terminal or un-treatable conditions. We’re simply asking now that the House of Commons has a chance to debate it, properly, in open discussion. We’ve all heard both sides of the rather hot-potato this has become, but what patients are really interested in is HOPE. Hope that our doctors can make decisions that might extend our lives, or the lives of those we love. Please, let’s have a proper debate and then move forward.
Only the status quo with a vested interest in continuing its present monopoly in its present form is opposing this Bill. It’s beyond obvious that the status quo is attempting to prevent or stall meaningful debate and trots out the same arguments that have already been dismissed by the majority of people it will most significantly impact: patients.
Thank you, Andy Lewis and Graham Lowell, for most informative replies, and all-too-credible analysis of motives. Worrying that people continue to post on here as if the Bill were about allowing access to otherwise unavailable treatment for the terminally or critically ill despite the clear explanations that that’s not what it does at all.
What a shame Dominic Nutt hasn’t been back to argue his corner.
What is so galling about these calls for ‘proper debate’ is that the debate has been going on for a year and Saatchi and his team have refused to listen. Instead, we have seen nothing but spin and PR.
When 100 oncologists wrote to the Times expressing their grave concerns about the Bill, Saatchi said,
“What sort of people do these 100 people think we are? Are we downstairs in Downton? Are we supposed to doff our cloth caps as these doctors go past us in Harley Street in their horse-drawn carriages?”
Saatchi’s team then organised a letter from various Lords, Ladies, Knights and Price Charles’ step-son. The irony appeared to be lost on him.
Various ammendments were proposed during the Lords. Almost all were brushed aside with vague reassurances. Concern was dismissed. Medical Negligence Lawyers have been attacked for dissenting.
Now that a government sponsored debate is the only hope of getting this through, suddenly the team are all for open discussion.
In a letter to the Telegraph http://goo.gl/ZCGnNP in support of passing the Saatchi Bill, many influential well educated researchers and experts in the field of oncology were signers:
Pan Pantziarka,The George Pantziarka TP53 Trust
Dominic Hill, Film maker & patient advocate
Professor Marc-Eric Halatsch, Professor of Neurosurgery, University of Ulm
Lydie Meheus, Managing Director, Anticancer Fund, Brussels
Dr Gauthier Bouche, Medical Director, Anticancer Fund, Brussels
Richard Gerber, Glioblastoma survivor and patient advocate
Professor Angus Dalgleish, St George’s Hospital, University of London
Professor Ahmed Ashour Ahmed, Professor of Gynaecological Oncology, University of Oxford
James Hargrave. Empower Access to Medicine
Dr John Symons, Director, Cancer of Unknown Primary Foundation
Flóra Raffai, Findacure
Professor Stephen Kennedy, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, University of Oxford
Dr Ian N Hampson, Reader in Viral Oncology, University of Manchester
Professor Andy Hall, Associate Dean of Translational Research, Newcastle University
Professor Emeritus Ben A Williams, Psychology, long-term glioblastoma survivor, patient advocate, Moore’s Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego
Dr Al Musella, President, Musella Foundation, founder The Grey Ribbon crusade: umbrella organisation for over 100 brain cancer charities
Professor John Boockvar, Director, Brain Tumor Center Lenox Hill Hospital NYC
Professor Emil J Freireich, Ruth Harriet Ainsworth Chair, Developmental Therapeutics, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
Brett Shockley, Patient advocate, Professor David Walker
Professor Pediatric Oncology, University of Nottingham
Laura Mancini, Clinical Scientist, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London
John Morrissey, Adviser to the Children’s Cancer Research Fund
Stephen Western, Patient advocate, Astrocytomaoptions.com
Richard E Kast, MD, IIAIGC Study Center
Charlie Chan FRCS, Consultant Breast Surgeon
Professor Chas Bountra, Professor of Translational Medicine, University of Oxford
Dr Henrietta Morton-King, North Cumbria University Hospitals Trust
Dr Andrew Brunskill, Clinical Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and Health Services, University of Washington Seattle)
Vincent Galbiati, President & CEO of Tomorrow’s Cures Today, Washington DC
Neil Hutchison, Founder, Magic Water Pediatric Cancer Foundation, San Diego
Fiona Court, Consultant Oncoplastic Breast Surgeon, Cheltenham
Professor Alastair Buchan, Head of the Medical Science Division and the Dean of the Medical School at the University of Oxford
Dr Georgios Evangelopoulos, Patient advocate, lawyer & political scientist
Professor John Yarnold, Professor of Clinical Oncology at The Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research
Professor Jerome H Pereira, Consultant General & Oncoplastic Breast Surgeon, Norwich Medical School University of East Anglia
Dr Lynne Hampson, Non Clinical Lecturer in Oncology, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Manchester
Dr Robert Kirby, Senior Lecturer, Hospital Dean, University Hospitals of North Midlands
Professor Gareth Evans, Professor of Medical Genetics and Cancer Epidemiology, University of Manchester
Dr Rupert McShane, Coordinating Editor Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, Oxford University
Michael Shackcloth, Consultant Thoracic Surgeon, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital
Professor Vikas P Sukhatme, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Co-founder Global Cures
Vidula Sukhatme, Co-founder Global Cures
Sarah Lindsell, CEO, The Brain Tumour Charity
Neil Dickson, Chairman, The Brain Tumour Charity
Alex Smith, Founder, Harrison’s Fund
Giles Cunnick, Consultant General & Breast Surgeon, Bucks Healthcare NHS Trust
Dr Piers Mahon, Biotech Consultant
Paul Fitzpatrick, Chairman, Duchenne Now
Dr David Faurrugia, Consultant Oncologist, Cheltenham General Hospital
Dr Chris Govender, Medical Officer in Addictions
Sue Farrington Smith, Chief Executive, Brain Tumour Research
Professor Steven Gill, Professor in Neurosurgery, University of Bristol
http://medicalinnovationbill.co.uk/about-the-medical-innovation-bill/supporters-medical-innovation-bill/
This link shows the support for the Bill.
Dinah Liversidge has hit the nail on the head -We’re simply asking now that the House of Commons has a chance to debate it, properly, in open discussion. It has been discussed and all amendments were passed so we now have a great Bill. Please lets let our MP’s debate it.
The detractors of this Bill somehow think that this Bill will be dangerous, encourage charlatan practice and hinder clinical research. These are all very important issues to be debated publicly and in Parliament. The House of Lords has debated this widely on four occasions – with far more time and scrutiny than even the most ardent of the detractors. This has cross-party support from the Lords, including support from many medical Lords, who had initial concerns.
If the Bill is flawed and dangerous, then let it be aired on the debating floor in the House of Commons. Surely that is the right and proper place for this to be discussed. The Bill has been studied in depth in the Lords and been amended astutely. The Medical Director of the NHS, Sir Bruce Keogh, has personally scrutinised the Bill and tabled amendments, which have gone through. If the Bill is truly unsafe, then let the Honourable Elected Members of Parliament decide whether to pass it or throw it out.
Returning to the beginning of my post, is this Bill dangerous, encouraging of charlatans and bad for clinical trials or research? I do not believe it is, and neither do many others. The Bill is designed to help only those with serious illness, for whom all standard and trial treatments have failed. Some patients, such as those with motor neurone disease or muscular dystrophy have no effective treatments available at all.
Creating a new culture where doctors can discuss novel treatments in an open manner should be a good thing. No-one expects miracle cures. But using established drugs in different situations or new drugs, which are on clinical trials in other fields, may be reasonable. After all, the WHO sanctioned the use of ZMAPP and other untested drugs in the current Ebola crisis, for an illness, which has a 70-90% mortality rate; they felt that this was ethical and the right thing to do. Some diseases carry a 100% early mortality rate. So why should Ebola be different to cancer, muscular dystrophy, motor neurone disease and other fatal diseases?
The creation of a new Medical Innovation Register is a key part of the Bill. This will oblige all doctors seeking to use the Bill to register each patient, who has a novel treatment. The follow up and outcomes must be recorded too. This database will be set up at Oxford University in a department with impeccable medical statistical and trial credentials. No charlatan or quack would wish to have his/her witchcraft potion registered and the failures recorded on an open access database for all to see across the world. The database will be open and transparent, so that every doctors using it can be publicly scrutinised.
Finally, Oxford University will also undertake to review novel treatments in the same way as clinical trials, producing reports on which new therapies show promise and which don’t. These reports can then be used by doctors and scientists to initiate substantive clinical trials to confirm or refute new treatments, which show promise. Thus medical knowledge advances and the experience of individual patients can be learned from.
Five days ago, I helped to carry the coffin of my 50 year old brother in law, who died from oesophageal cancer. He was an archetypal technocrat, who crashed the nascent world wide web in the early 90s by uploading too many cookery recipes. We spoke many times about the Bill. He supported it, as he understood that it aims to improve mankind. Please allow this to be debated freely in the House of Commons – that is all he would ask of you.
Charlie Chan DPhil FRCS
Consultant Surgeon
It’s good to see the article has now been changed to include Nutt’s conflict of interest in being paid by Saatchi to promote his Bill. Pity it took so long.
Mavis – let me give an example of why the Bill has not become a ‘great Bill’ as a result of its passage through the Lords.
All ammendments have not been passed. Indeed only very few.
In the thrird reading, two ammendments were proposed. The first wanted to add a clause that would have brought the new law much more in line with Common Law – a stated aim of the bill – but one it was failing on. The ammendment said that the required cosnultation should “for the purpose of ensuring that the proposed treatment would command the respect of a representative body of responsible medical opinion, having regard to the needs of patient safety)”
It was rejected. Think about that. Patients are currently protected by requiring treatments to command respect of a responsible body of medical opinion. The Saatchi Bill rejected an attempt to maintain this protection for patients.
Secondly, another ammendment was proposed and accepted by Lord Saatchi. It required doctors to,
“comply with any professional requirements as to
registration of the treatment under the provisions of this Act
with a scheme for capturing the results of innovative
treatment (including positive and negative results and
information about small-scale treatments and patients’
experiences)”
This was accepted by Saatchi as one of the thing the PR team had been going on about for months was that the Bill would force doctors to record their medical innovations in a central register.
But there is a big But here. and that is no such register exist and no such professional requirement exists as stated in the Bi. So the upshot of this ammendment is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Whoever drafted this ammendment created a clause to rely on a requirement on doctors when that professional requirement does not exist. It is either incompetent in its drafting or dishonest.
In the article above, Dominic Nutt appears to either misunderstand what the Bill now says or is not being clear when he says “The Bill also makes it a requirement to register innovative treatments”. The Bill only makes it a requirement insofar as their is a professional obligation to do so. No such obligation exists. One might come away from Nutt’s article thinking the Bill will create a database of innovative treatments. It will do no such thing.
This is what Im so pleased to see happen It doesnt hapen now as I would have used such a data base and saved myself so much money in phonecalls and traveling to find a treatment ——–Oxford University has also agreed to set up and run a database containing anonymised information about those who agree to the treatments.
Stephen Kennedy, a professor of reproductive medicine at Oxford University, told The Telegraph the database will be “publicly accessible to patients and healthcare professionals alike”.
Patients would be able to go onto the website, find an innovative treatment that had been tested on other people and then ask for it to be tested on them.
Prof Kennedy said: “There would be a facility within the database to enable people to search on the basis of conditions and treatments.” Patients’ details on the site “would be completely anonymous,” he added
Andy Lewis said:
“In the article above, Dominic Nutt appears to either misunderstand what the Bill now says or is not being clear when he says “The Bill also makes it a requirement to register innovative treatments”. The Bill only makes it a requirement insofar as their is a professional obligation to do so. No such obligation exists. One might come away from Nutt’s article thinking the Bill will create a database of innovative treatments. It will do no such thing.”
And, of course, the Medical Innovation Bill isn’t required to set up a register of treatments. If it was identified that a register would be beneficial to patients, it could be done without any need for the MIB and the harms that will come with that.
@Mavis
So, this register doesn’t exist yet, isn’t set up by the Bill and there is no requirement in the Bill for doctors to register any treatment in it and all we know about it is a quote in a newspaper?
Anyway, what measures will have to be taken to ensure confidentiality of data in the database, particularly if it was to be open to the public?
I find it frustrating but not surprising that opposition to the Bill does not come from those who directly experience the problems that the Saatchi Bill is trying to put right. These problems are real to patients and carers like myself. Evidence absolutely exist and can prove that even though there may be a treatment that could help but is not licenced for that particular rare cancer or condition, your oncologist most likely will not suggest it. Medical professionals entered their profession to help patients, however current law is such that they are forced to put their career before the very people they want to help. It is only those, and there are thousands and counting, who actually understand what it is to be diagnosed incurable or terminal that understand that the Saatchi Bill will allow medical innovation for the ever increasing rare conditions that can’t be ignore or considered insignificant. Under current law it is extremely unlikely that a clinical trial will ever be conducted on a rare condition, but under the Satchi Bill a clinical trial for rare conditions would be possible. I really do hope that those who oppose the Bill are never in a position of needing innovation for themselves or a loved one, although only then would they really understand that we need the changes that the Saatchi Bill will help to make a reality for thousands who have the right to choose to fight for their life.
Charlie Chan said:
“The creation of a new Medical Innovation Register is a key part of the Bill.”
No! The Medical Innovation Bill does NOT create any kind of a register! Have you not read the Bill you have supported?
Of course, if it does, I’m sure you’ll be able to tell us what paragraph of the Bill creates this register?
Rachel Lewis-Mayhew said:
“I find it frustrating but not surprising that opposition to the Bill does not come from those who directly experience the problems that the Saatchi Bill is trying to put right.”
Other than the likes of the Motor Neurone Disease Association, Action Against Medical Accidents and Genetic Alliance UK? And of course all those who would benefit from the protection the Bill would give them? However, what is more important is whether the MIB actually solves the problem it is claimed it solves and whether in doing so, it causes other avoidable harms.
“Evidence absolutely exist and can prove that even though there may be a treatment that could help but is not licensed for that particular rare cancer or condition, your oncologist most likely will not suggest it.”
Please provide that evidence so we can examine it, remembering, of course, that doctors are already free to prescribe off-label and unlicensed treatments.
“Medical professionals entered their profession to help patients, however current law is such that they are forced to put their career before the very people they want to help.”
You say that, but no one – least of all the Bill’s PR team – has yet provided any good evidence this is the case. All the medical Royal Colleges, the GMC, the BMA, the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society and many others all say they have no evidence that doctors are deterred from innovating because of fear of litigation – that is, the problem the MIB claims to solve. Why is that? Why has it been impossible – so far at least – for the Bill’s PR team to provide that evidence?
“It is only those, and there are thousands and counting, who actually understand what it is to be diagnosed incurable or terminal that understand that the Saatchi Bill will allow medical innovation for the ever increasing rare conditions that can’t be ignore or considered insignificant.”
But the Bill will just not do that. It’s a false premise and the Bill is a false promise. And even if it did, any benefits have to be balanced with the harms to patients that will be caused by irresponsible experimentation that this Bill allows.
“Under current law it is extremely unlikely that a clinical trial will ever be conducted on a rare condition”
Then perhaps the current law on clinical trials needs to be examined – but the MIB does nothing to improve any issues surrounding trials and may, in fact, reduce the numbers of people taking part in properly conducted trials.
“but under the Saatchi Bill a clinical trial for rare conditions would be possible.”
No it wouldn’t: paragraph 1(6)(a) of the Bill specifically excludes “treatment carried out for the purposes of medical research”.
“I really do hope that those who oppose the Bill are never in a position of needing innovation for themselves or a loved one”
Innovation already happens all the time: it doesn’t need this Bill.
“although only then would they really understand that we need the changes that the Saatchi Bill will help to make a reality for thousands who have the right to choose to fight for their life.”
This Bill will not and cannot have the effects that are claimed for it. What it will do is encourage irresponsible experimentation – it is liable to expose patients to disproportionate, avoidable harm while expressly removing access to redress.
Rachel
1. How do you know opponents of the MIB don’t experience the problems Saatchi is trying to put right? Where do you think opponents of the Bill live? In a world where they do not have heartbreaking, chronic medical disorders, and dying friends and relatives? Just because someone doesn’t put their personal story into the public domain doesn’t mean they have no personal experience. A personal experience of suffering doesn’t make me an expert in law or science or medicine or anything else for that matter. My hope for a better future (short or long) cannot make the world better just by willing it desperately. I’ve been amazed by the dramatic innovations in my lifetime, and long may they continue.
2. And which law exactly is it that forces doctors to put their career before the very people they want to help?
@Rachel
You said “I find it frustrating but not surprising that opposition to the Bill does not come from those who directly experience the problems that the Saatchi Bill is trying to put right. ”
How do you know this? I would suggest this is an absurd position to take. Most people in their lives have been touched by serious medical conditions either for themselves or loved ones.
I oppose this Bill because I think it could do very considerable harms to my loved ones. I do not want myself or others to be treated under the Saatchi regime where a doctor could never be subjected to a court’s evaluation of whether action was reasonable, responsible and rational. It is a quack’s charter and can only benefit the incompetent, reckless or greedy doctor.
Oncologists routinely use unlicensed treatments for cancers. There is nothing in law to stop them. They do this pretty much every time they treat a child. The Bill does nothing to make treatments available that are not currently an option for oncologists and patients. The only difference under the Bill will be that a maverick doctor could offer a treatment without fear of legal consequences if that treatment could not be justified.
Currently oncologists might not offer a treatment for many reasons. Fear of legal consequences is not one of them. Usually it has much more to due with an understanding that the balance of risks or outcomes is not in the patient’s interests.
As for clinical trials, this Bill does nothing to advance clinical trials for rare conditions or even offer an alternative. There is nothing in the Bill about this. Indeed, the Bill expressly forbids research under the Saatchi regime. It is not advocating medical innovation but a rather bizarre form of medical improvisation where no knowledge that could benefit others could arise.
I strongly suggest that supporters of the Bill do not listen to what the people say the Bill will do but instead actually read the Bill. The difference between what supporters say is in the Bill and what is there is vast.
Charlie Chan says “The creation of a new Medical Innovation Register is a key part of the Bill.”
I would challenge Mr Chan to say exactly which clause in the Bill creates this Medical Innovation Register.
It appears this Bill is only opposed by those who have the most to lose (the status quo) and embraced by those who have the most to gain — the public. It’s glaringly obvious that medical innovation has been resisted and suppressed, but that’s quite typical of mainstream medicine. Current oncology chemotherapy treatments net about $300,000 per patient with a 5 yr survival rate of around 2%. There have been no significant innovations or improvements in cancer treatment for years while promising new treatments are not thoroughly investigated through patient outcome studies, of course, with full patient consent.
It should be noted that Laurie Willberg is a homeopath.
Laurie
I’m afraid the assertions you make do not stand up to published statistics from the Office for National Statistics, cancer charities and academic papers. The third bullet point on CRUKs headline page on survival (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/) says “Cancer survival in the UK has doubled in the last 40 years.” Personally, I think that shows considerable improvement and innovation here in the UK.
Treatments are thoroughly investigated through patient outcome studies; there was a Panorama programme last week on this very issue focussing on the incredible work being done at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b052sjsg/panorama-can-you-cure-my-cancer). Similarly, there is at least one public database of clinical trials in progress (http://www.ukctg.nihr.ac.uk/default.aspx in general, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/trials/ for cancer specifically).
@Andy Lewis said: “It should be noted that Laurie Willberg is a homeopath.”
“Personal or ad hominem attacks are fallacious arguments directly directed at a named individual which serve as substitutes for that individual’s arguments. In football terminology, they play the player instead of the ball.” Professor Edzard Ernst (from a blog post of Saturday 22 December 2012)
In the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, the Medical Innovation Register is described in principle here. Of course, there is no Register yet, as the Bill has not become Law. But the Register is agreed in principle and will be compulsory, if the Bill is passed.
11. Subsection (3)(e) requires the doctor to comply with any professional requirements that may be in place to register the proposed innovative treatment with a data-capture scheme. The Bill does not establish a data-bank, but if one is established, and if the medical regulatory bodies require doctors to use it, then the Bill will make compliance with registration requirements compulsory for doctors relying on the provisions of the Bill in order to innovate. The provision includes reference to the registration of all data, including negative results and information about small-scale treatments and patients’ experiences.
Charlie Chan said:
“In the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, the Medical Innovation Register is described in principle here. Of course, there is no Register yet, as the Bill has not become Law. But the Register is agreed in principle and will be compulsory, if the Bill is passed.”
I think you need to re-read what the actual Bill says, Charlie, but I’m glad you now admit there is no register even though it’s not even described in principle in the Bill.
The Bill may well be yet further amended and may – at some future date – include some mandatory register where all doctors choosing to be covered by the Bill have to register the treatments they have given, but, as you now admit, the Bill says no such thing at present.
Now, because you’ve been closely associated with the Bill’s PR team and have supported the Bill, you may have some special insider knowledge that the rest of us don’t have and there may be a new amendment tabled for the Bill’s second reading next Friday, but until such time as the Bill does contain provision that sets up a register of treatments, we will have to go on what the Bill actually says now and not speculate what – depending on the will of Parliament – it might say some time in the future.
I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
@Sandra – I am not attacking you, I am merely pointing out important contextual information that puts your comment into a wider context. As I have previously said, this Bill is supported by homeopaths .
@Andy
Frame the comment as you wish. I’ll let the readers here decide the intent.
It should be noted that Andy Lewis belongs to the organized “skeptic” pharma lobby that only Astroturfs as consumer advocates. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Hi Sandra – another homeopath.
As for Laurie, that is of course a lie and you have absolutely no evidence for this. In fact, I believe the only reason the homeopaths suppor the Saatchi Bill is because they see people who are agaisnt quckery also against the Saatchi Bill – therefore the SaatchiBill must be good.
As has been pointed out above, the links with Big Pharma appear to come from the pro-Saatchi side.
I would ask the homeopaths to read this article and see where the author of the above article pops up in it. Then come back to us and repeat their allegations.
https://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anne-williams/maurice-saatchi-his-medical-innovation-bill-and-booming-%E2%80%98orphan-drugs%E2%80%99-mark
Charlie
Do you really not see the difference between these two statements of yours:
“The creation of a new Medical Innovation Register is a key part of the Bill. This will oblige all doctors seeking to use the Bill to register each patient, who has a novel treatment.”
and
“but IF one is established, and IF the medical regulatory bodies require doctors to use it, THEN the Bill will make compliance with registration requirements compulsory for doctors relying on the provisions of the Bill” (my emphasis)
There is no register, and while Oxford seems to have offered to host one, it is not actually the Bill or Lord Saatchi who will be setting it up. This relies on the GMC to do so. Leaving aside the very many issues that have yet to be determined (the register is said to be anonymous, but how can this be guaranteed with very rare diseases such as Ebola? Who will fund it? Who will have access to the information?), here’s the big one:
The GMC is against the register and does not think that it can mandate and police compliance. See here:http://nigelpooleqc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-medical-innovation-register.html
Indeed the GMC, like the BMA, Royal Colleges, MDU, MPS, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust, the MRC, the Patient’s Association and AvMA (you’ll note that those comprise pretty much all of the medical, medical protection, research and patient bodies) are AGAINST the Bill. For the GMC’s current position see here at paras 66-7:http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/health-committee/2015-accountability-hearing-with-the-general-medical-council/oral/17274.pdf
To be frank, there’s either something fundamentally wrong with the Bill or all of the above major bodies have had a collective brain fade. I’d ask you which you think is more likely.
@Jolec
Indeed. So many unanswered questions about the Bill…
The best way to persuade someone to oppose the Bill is to ask them to actually read what it says (there’s not much to it), not what the hype, spin and PR surrounding it might say:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0162/cbill_2014-20150162_en_2.htm
@sandra
An ad hominem would be “she’s not to be trusted because she’s a homeopath”.
“Laurie Willberg is a homeopath” is a statement of fact.
@laurie
You saying Andy Lewis is part of the “organised ‘skeptic’ pharma lobby” reminded me of Kevin M. Folta’s response to being called a GMO lobbying shill:
1. It immediately says that you are willing to make up information in the absence of evidence.
2. It says that you are finished with the conversation, that nothing I communicate is valid in your opinion.
3. It shows that you are willing to try to influence other like-minded people with disinformation.
http://kfolta.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/thoughts-from-shill-for-monsanto.html
As someone who has worked in tribal areas abroad where the people do not have access to litigation if things go wrong, and where they are prey to all sorts of unproven interventions by people who sell potions etc., I would just like to say that I don’t find the idea of doctors practising ‘defensive’ medicine a problem at all. I would go further and say that, in my opinion, the law has caused the medical profession to raise their game when it comes to how they treat their patients and that patients have benefitted as a result.
It’s a great pity and disappointment that neither Dominic Nutt nor Charlie Chan have responded to the very valid and pertinent criticisms of what they have said.
This has been a feature all along with this Bill and its PR campaign, but this isn’t some new soap powder that’s being advertised and we’re not complaining that it doesn’t wash as white as is claimed: this is a Bill that, if enacted, with have extremely serious and detrimental consequences on patients, on doctors and on clinical research. The supporters of the Bill should be responding to the criticisms raised, not brushing them aside or ignoring them, perhaps in the hope they will simply disappear.
The House of Commons may get a chance to debate the Bill this coming Friday: I sincerely hope they do, but it has to be a detailed, careful and robust scrutiny it receives, not the superficial examination it received in the House of Lords, where Saatchi promised – and subsequently failed on several occasions – to take into account the many, many voices of concern.
The Saatchi Medical Innovation Bill is supported by Paediatric Oncology Consultants country wide. My son died recently from standard UK treatment side effects for a brain tumour. We were unable to acquire potentially life saving medication quickly due to the current system. Anyone who actually takes the time to read the whole Bill will see why it has gained such public support and time and energy should be put into making it work rather than standing of the sidelines criticising it.
Sally Hall said:
“The Saatchi Medical Innovation Bill is supported by Paediatric Oncology Consultants country wide.”
Is it? These 100 UK oncologists don’t support it:
http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/over-100-of-the-uks-leading-cancer-specialists-oppose-the-saatchi-bill/
And the following have also voiced their opposition to it as being unnecessary, ill-conceived and potentially dangerous to patients:
Academy for Healthcare Sciences
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust
Action Against Medical Accidents
Association of Medical Research Charities
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
British Medical Association
British Pharmacological Society
Cancer Research UK
General Medical Council
Genetic Alliance UK
Good Thinking Society
HealthWatch
Kingsley Napley LLP
Dr Margaret McCartney
Medical Defence Union
Medical Protection Society
Motor Neurone Disease Association
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NHS Health Research Authority
NHS Litagation Authority
Nick Ross
Price Slater Gawne
Professor Jose Miola
Professor Michael Baum
Robert Francis QC
Royal College of General Practitioners (added 04 August 2014)
Royal College of Physicians
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Royal College of Radiologists
Royal College of Surgeons
Sean Ellis
The Nightingale Collaboration
In the last few days, the Patients Association have made their position clear:
“As the issues stand at the moment, the Patients Association would oppose this Bill. The Patients Association would like to see a wide ranging public debate that would allow the profile of this issue to be raised. Only in this way can the views of all interested parties including patients, the public, practitioners and pharmaceutical companies be taken into account. Without this, the Patients Association would be concerned that medicine would be moving into grey areas where issues such as responsibility, accountability, understanding and outcomes become blurred.”
http://www.patients-association.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PA-Statement-Medical-Innovation-Bill.doc
And Action against Medical Accidents – the charity for patient safety & justice – have said:
“The whole Bill is based on the misconception that it is the threat of patients suing over negligent treatment that inhibits medical innovation and that patients are therefore missing out on treatment that could save their lives. If that were true the Bill would have unanimous support, but it simply is not the case.
…
The Bill has been promoted in the media as being a potential life-saver for dying patients. It is nothing of the sort. ”
http://www.nationalvoices.org.uk/medical-innovation-bill-could-be-most-bizarre-health-act-ever
Fortunately, it looks like the unnecessary and dangerous Bill is dead: Lib Dems veto Saatchi’s medical innovation bill: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/01/lib-dems-veto-saatchis-medical-innovation-bill
And now it is: The end of the Medical Innovation Bill
http://www.stopthesaatchibill.co.uk/the-end-of-the-medical-innovation-bill/