START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,455,594 people care about Health Policy

If You Were Gravely Ill, Would You Want an Experimental Treatment?

If You Were Gravely Ill, Would You Want an Experimental Treatment?

UK lawmakers are contemplating clarifying the law to allow doctors to offer terminally ill patients unconventional drugs and procedures, something that so far seems to have received strong public support.

The legislation, called the Medical Innovations Bill, would clear the way for doctors to try new medical techniques (but not to experiment) or use medications outside of their traditional use if they feel they can help gravely ill patients and if those patients give their express consent.

Originally proposed by Lord Saatchi in 2012, a revised bill will be offered in Westminster’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, on Thursday. Lord Saatchi’s legislation comes from having watched his sadly deceased wife die of ovarian cancer and a conviction that more could be done to fight these fatal diseases if doctors did not fear lengthy court battles if they try unusual medical interventions.

The bill’s key effect will be to change the point at which the so-called Bolam Test is applied.At the moment, if a doctor tries a procedure and is then taken to court due to a complaint, a panel of specialists must see whether the experimental procedure was justified. The legislation would mean that the test would be applied before the treatment is given, thus hopefully improving both safety and the possibility of innovation.

Now, a report on a public consultation over the legislation shows that the public seem to overwhelming support the spirit of the bill. Individual doctors, scientists and charities have also backed the legislation.

“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,” Lord Saatchi is quoted as saying. 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 1.2bn 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.”

The latest version of the legislation has been reworked to respond to concerns that there could be a slippery slope and that it might affect patient rights. The reworked bill makes it clear that the legislation only gives doctors legal clarity to do something that, in most cases, is actually already technically legal, while also ensuring that the law will add further safeguards so that quack cures cannot be tried. For instance, any application for an experimental procedure would have to be taken before a review board and examined in detail. Though, here arises the main problem with the bill as it is currently written.

For instance, a statement issued by the Royal College of Surgeons in April notes that the legislation could both help to innovate in medical science and safeguard against abuses of the system. However, the advisory body is concerned that among other things, the legislation in its current form allows the doctor wanting to try an innovative treatment to ultimately disregard the advisory body’s findings on whether the treatment to be tried is appropriate. This appears to be the major area of contention for a number of medical bodies, including the Academy for Healthcare Science which oversees many NHS practices. It is also an area over which most of the British press seems to have skipped (if they’ve read the bill at all).

A second issue with the bill is that it frames the current law in a way that miscasts what is actually legal. It offers that doctors will at the moment be found negligent if they depart from traditional practices. That’s not necessarily true if the doctor follows all standard care protocols. As such, the legislation will need to be re-worked in order to give an accurate picture of the current state of the law and what will be changed.

This of course isn’t an obstacle that is insurmountable and the problems could be addressed during parliamentary debate. The UK’s health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said he will back the bill if there is strong support. An independent adviser is due to give his recommendations on the legislation this week, but reports suggest a favorable outlook.

So should doctors be allowed to offer patients unorthodox methods of treatment if they meet rigorous care standards? Many people seem to say yes because, when there is nothing to lose, there is a lot to gain. Obviously, there are concerns that every step of this change should be closely monitored and that the emphasis should always be on patient care and not just innovation, but if this balance can be struck it seems the UK is ready to support patients working with their doctors as they try unconventional medical treatments that could, potentially, save people from pain or even save lives.

Read more: , , , , , ,

Photo credit: Thinkstock.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

93 comments

+ add your own
3:47AM PDT on Jun 19, 2014

I would try. If it didn't help me the information might help someone else.

7:14PM PDT on Jun 12, 2014

It is doubtful that i would try it but I am very supportive of anyone who needs or wishes to try care that is out of the normal procedures if it gives them more hope.

3:37AM PDT on Jun 10, 2014

Just go for it and have trust in it!

8:46AM PDT on Jun 9, 2014

I WAS critically ill in a coma; knowing my wishes, my partner elected experimental treatments.
I'm typing this comment today!

4:49PM PDT on Jun 8, 2014

yes

1:54PM PDT on Jun 8, 2014

Obviously, yes. If no existing treatments are known to work why not take the chance, nothing to lose.

5:58AM PDT on Jun 8, 2014

If it would leave me quality of life yes, otherwise no. Just to be living, is not my style.

5:25AM PDT on Jun 8, 2014

As long as everyone is well-informed. Unfortunately, we are kept in the dark about a lot of things. Our water is being poisoned, and our food is being doused with herbicides and pesticides and genetically altered, and they don't want to tell us the truth about any of that. They also stick us with known toxic chemicals mixed with biological waste products containing foreign RNA and DNA which are also grossly incompatible with our bodies, and have managed to make most people believe the big lie that we are protected by these "immunizations" and they ended two big epidemics with them. Barney Clark was hoodwinked into getting the artificial heart, and begged to be allowed to die because he was in agony after receiving it. No such luck. Beware being sold a bill of goods with no truthful information in the mix.

4:16AM PDT on Jun 8, 2014

A light of hope and chances

5:05PM PDT on Jun 7, 2014

Yes, every human being deserves the right to live and die and if experimental treatment is available. It is there option to try or be given it.




Yes, it is the right to try to be given experimental treatment or drugs to save their life or contribute to the future.


add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

That's good news, one small step for liberty. The federal government has no authority to ban a natural…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
ads keep care2 free

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.