Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2011

17 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Chronic Pain Services

McKee, Ian SNP Lothians Watch on SPTV

I congratulate Mary Scanlon on obtaining this members’ business debate. It is, perhaps, the last time that I will be able to contribute to parliamentary proceedings. It is no secret that I have sometimes disagreed with Mary Scanlon’s views, but no one can doubt her record as a doughty campaigner for the causes that are dear to her heart. The treatment—often, alas, lack of treatment—of chronic pain ranks high in that category, and rightly so. Along with other members, I acknowledge the contribution that Dorothy-Grace Elder has made to the cause.

We are becoming familiar with statistics that highlight how many people in our population have their lives affected by chronic pain. As Mary Scanlon and others have said, 20 per cent of people are affected and 7 per cent need intensive treatment, as their condition is so disabling. In the past, the condition received little attention, but I am glad to say that there are signs that that is changing. For example, the Royal College of General Practitioners has made chronic pain one of its priorities for 2011 to 2013. As just about everyone who is affected presents first in primary care, that is a great step forward.

One lesson that we have learned from the past is that there is much more chance of a successful outcome with early and appropriately targeted intervention than if the condition is left until it has become almost embedded as a permanent feature of someone’s life, affecting every aspect of what they do and feel and how they relate to others. Pain is disabling, both physically and mentally. It follows that chronic pain is not an easy condition to treat, and those affected usually need a combined approach, involving not just medication but many other interventions.

Mary Scanlon’s motion highlights the fact that some Scottish patients experiencing chronic pain have to travel to England—even as far afield as Bath—for the treatment that they need, and implies that that is automatically a bad thing. I quite understand that sentiment, but I advise a degree of caution. Although it is easy to see the adverse consequences—some of which are listed in the motion—of having to travel far for medical treatment of any kind, it is now accepted that, for some conditions, travelling to a centre of expertise is preferable to accepting what may be a lower standard of service nearer home. The treatment of certain types of cancer is a case in point.