Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 29 September 2011

29 Sep 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Cancer Drugs

McDonald, Mark SNP North East Scotland Watch on SPTV

Like many in the chamber and in wider society, I have experience of losing a family member to cancer. It is worth noting that none of us in the chamber is immune to the situations that people across Scotland face in that regard. That said, we must always try to avoid becoming too emotional during debates on this issue; we must be rational as well as emotional when we discuss cancer and, in particular, cancer treatment.

It is fair to say that the cancer drugs fund has not met with the universal acclaim that one might have assumed it received if one had listened to the speeches from Conservative members. Indeed, a recent article in the oncology commission journal of The Lancet stated of the fund:

“because these decisions are regional, it reintroduces the postcode lottery”—

thereby leading to disparities in England, as the cabinet secretary outlined.

Mary Fee referred to an article in The Daily Telegraph, which pointed out that the Society and College of Radiographers had stated clearly that the fund was diverting money away from treatment and areas such as radiotherapy services. There is clear evidence that the cancer drugs fund is not all that it is cracked up to be, so we should exercise a degree of caution about it.

It is entirely appropriate that we focus our efforts on prevention and preventative spending, which the Government is seeking to drive forward. The Government is extremely keen on early detection, which is an approach that I support because the earlier a cancer is detected, the greater the patient’s chances of survival. We should focus our efforts on early detection, rather than diverting money towards end-of-life treatments for cancer patients. I fully accept that this is an emotive issue, but we must always take into account the fact that in many cases prolonging life does not increase quality of life. The key consideration for any health professional looking at life-prolonging treatments, must be the quality of life for the individual, not necessarily longevity.

In that regard, we must ensure that there is expenditure on end-of-life and palliative care. I am concerned that if we were to focus our efforts simply on directing money towards the treatment of cancer, as well as neglecting early detection we could neglect appropriate end-of-life care for individuals who no longer respond to treatment or who require simply to be made comfortable towards the end of their life.

The oncology commission journal of The Lancet states:

“Today, early detection and cancer-specific treatment advances have resulted in increased cancer survival”

rates. I support the Government’s focus on early detection, because it increases cancer survival rates—it is where we should be targeting our efforts.

This is a worthwhile debate, but the establishment of a cancer drugs fund would be a distraction. Other organisations that deal with terminal conditions would ask us, “If cancer drugs are a priority, why not drugs for heart disease or Alzheimer’s?” We must ensure that, at all times, the health of the nation in general is the priority for this Parliament. Yes, there will undoubtedly be individual cases that need to be dealt with—there always are—but the appropriate way to deal with them is as individual cases, as the cabinet secretary said.

Where there are local difficulties, it is entirely appropriate that they are highlighted to Government so that it can see whether it can make changes to the mindset at a local level, but dealing with local difficulties on a national basis is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 29 September 2011

In the same item of business