Experts issue cancer care election challenge
A group of cancer experts have challenged political parties to explain how they would cut waits for diagnosis and treatment of the disease, which they said offered the greatest hope of saving lives and improving life expectancy.
In a joint letter, the five experts - including three university professors and a representative of the Teenage Cancer Trust - said they wanted to focus the health debate ahead of the May 6 general election on “how to deliver early detection and rapid treatment”.
The experts did not express an allegiance to any political party, but their letter was distributed to the press by Labour.
And their argument boosts Labour’s argument for a legally-enforceable guarantee of cancer test results within one week of referral - something which Conservatives have not matched.
The Tories have instead highlighted their promise to spend £200 million to give patients access to cancer drugs which have been licensed but have not received approval from the health spending watchdog NICE.
Today’s letter was signed by Ian Ellis, Professor of Cancer Pathology at the University of Nottingham; Hilary Thomas, Honorary Professor of Oncology at the University of Surrey; Professor Mike Kirby, of the University of Hertfordshire and The Prostate Centre; Michelle Saxby, of the Teenage Cancer Trust; and Essex GP Dr Shaun Firth.
They wrote: “Improvements in how quickly we are able to diagnose and begin to treat cancers offer the greatest potential for saving lives and improving the life expectancy of those affected by cancer.
“That’s why we challenge each of the three parties to explain how they will ensure that waits for tests become a thing of the past and that patients diagnosed with cancer can begin treatment with the shortest possible delay.
“By focusing the debate on how to deliver early detection and rapid treatment, we can test each party’s plans for helping the NHS grapple with a disease that will affect so many of us.”
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (4)
Joe Bloggs | 26-Apr-2010 10:28 am
As a former CEO, I thought that the time to treatment is what matters. Diagnostic waiting times are important and a 1 week timeframe is great but most cancers are detected indirectly from 'other' diagnostic tests. What alarms me and perhaps the authors of the letter, is we keep getting political parties 'selling' their headlines of new targets time and time again but it's a completely overstretched NHS that has to find the solutions. Will this be yet another target on top of the thousands the NHS already has? I don't know why I'm asking because we already know the answer.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 26-Apr-2010 11:31 am
I like how the experts have challenged the politicians as I believe they should be held accountable for the statements/promises they make. If they haven't worked out the costs related to these improvements they shouldn't be making any promise. I have yet to see a structured plan as to how NHS will save 5 billion a year through efficiency savings. I would like to see a detailed plan for each Trust/PCT/other NHS bodies as how they plan to cut their costs for the next 3-5 yrs.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Roy Lilley | 26-Apr-2010 1:11 pm
This raises a really important issue. Just what is the position of the NHS Constitution. It is referred to in the 2009 Act as a document that STHA PCTS and others should take notice of, but what is its legal position. Is a cancer wait beyond 2 weeks unlawful?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Ginette CAMPS-WALSH | 26-Apr-2010 11:38 pm
The debate must be about cancer outcomes not measurements of process.
I am concerned that my mother, who has advanced cancer, and the many millions of others with cancer in the UK are likley to die much earlier than if they were treated in any other developed country including those in Eastern Europe.
This is not good enough. We deserve better. The Labour Government should be ashamed of this.
The Labour Party is clearly using these people to divert the electorate away from these facts towards one of their famous arbitary process targets and in the process trying to spread misinformation about Conservative policies.
We should ask Cancer Research UK and leading oncologist what they think we need to improve outcomes. From my mother's experience access to cancer drugs banned by NICE would be a good start plus radiotherapy equipment on a par with EU neighbours and published results on outcomes, not micromanagement and process targets.
Unsuitable or offensive?