Hansard

One of our most important jobs as elected representatives is to highlight important issues that struggle to get attention. I am therefore very pleased to have secured today's debate. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those bodies that seek to raise the profile of prostate cancer, some of which are represented in the Parliament today. Prostate cancer awareness week will come to an end on Saturday, and it is only fitting that the Parliament should mark such an important week.

Some members will be familiar with the pain of having a friend or relative who has cancer. It is encouraging to note that cancer is more talked about now than at any time in recent history. For women, the importance of screening for breast or cervical cancer is recognised, but the situation is different for men.

In August, I attended a meeting of the Highland prostate cancer support group, and was left in no doubt about the seriousness of the situation. The meeting was a large gathering of men and their wives, some of whom had travelled up to 80 miles to be present. One man who was there worked for a general practitioner, but he had never heard of prostate cancer until he was diagnosed. Before I attended that meeting, I was unaware of the true situation. I was startled to learn that many patients may have had prostate cancer for up to 10 years prior to diagnosis.

Prostate cancer is the second biggest cancer killer of men and is on the increase, yet many men are unaware of it. I can see no reason why men cannot seek screening for detection. As with any cancer, early diagnosis is crucial. Some men may be embarrassed by the symptoms, or may ignore them because they seem trivial. Whatever the difficulties, it is essential that we get across the message to men that early screening is vital if they are to stand a chance of fighting prostate cancer; if they have symptoms, they should be able to go for screening. Doctors should make their male patients aware of the cancer and offer screening to those with a family history of it. I have heard of doctors who refuse to screen patients, dismissing prostate cancer as an old man's disease.

More resources are needed for the promotion of awareness through health boards, the provision in doctors' surgeries and hospitals of leaflets produced by the Health Education Board for Scotland, television adverts and so on. That is perhaps the most obvious and easiest course of action.

Research has been done in the United States on the links between diet and prostate cancer. Our western diet may be a cause for the rise in the incidence of prostate cancer. Men must be given greater encouragement to eat healthily, to use food supplements such as selenium and to take vitamins E and D. That approach can reduce the incidence of cancer by 50 per cent, according to recent research.

The second issue is that of the most appropriate screening test. I know that the prostatic specific antigen test, which is a simple blood test, is not infallible—there are false positive and negative results. However, I am told that results can be very accurate when the test is combined with other tests, such as direct rectal examinations, or when a series of PSA tests are taken, allowing the increase or rate of increase in the antigen to be determined.

A group in Scotland is researching ways in which to improve screening. Funding for that research is important. Some people maintain that the research has already been done in other countries and that we do not need to reinvent the wheel. However, I believe that men must be encouraged to ask for screening and that research from other countries should be taken seriously.

There is also a debate on how best to treat the cancer when it is discovered. There seem to be different types of prostate cancer—some attack aggressively, while others can lie dormant for years. The most appropriate forms of treatment will be established only when there is greater research. Some pharmaceutical companies are conducting clinical trials, but a more concerted effort is needed, which will require Government, companies and patients to work together. At the moment, there seems to be no consensus on treatment and some health boards seem unnecessarily draconian. Quality of life is paramount in the treatment of prostate cancer.

For too long, the perception that prostate cancer has been forgotten has been allowed to persist. Action on some of the issues that I have raised today could change that. The Parliament can play a role. I urge the Health and Community Care Committee to consider the issue so that we can show that men who suffer from prostate cancer have our support. We must promote awareness of prostate cancer and encourage more research into screening and treatment. As a first step, we must at least promote screening for men who have a family history of the disease.