Cancer increasing! Britain's cancer scandal

[Guest guest]

-

" Ken " <shining

Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:08 PM

Britain's cancer scandal

 

 

>

> Britain's cancer scandal

> http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,660976,00.html

>

> Deadly rise in wait for cancer care

>

> More hospitals failing treatment targets. Doctors urge

> change as delays cost lives

>

> Anthony Browne, health editor Sunday March 3, 2002 The

> Observer

>

> Thousands of NHS cancer patients are dying unnecessarily

> because waiting times for life-saving treatments are growing

> alarmingly. The number waiting a dangerously long time has

> doubled in two years, says a devastating official study obtained

> by The Observer.

>

> The unpublished report shows some patients are now having to

> wait more than eight months for treatment, during which time

> many of their cancers become incurable.

>

> The survey by the Royal College of Radiologists reveals the

> growing crisis on the cancer wards, with waiting times rising in

> all parts of the UK apart from Wales and Northern Ireland. The

> number of patients delayed for more than the Government's target

> of four weeks has more than doubled.

>

> The report is acutely embarrassing for the Department of

> Health because it made reducing waiting times for cancer the top

> priority for the NHS. Health Secretary Alan Milburn has

> repeatedly publicised figures showing that urgent cancer cases

> are seen by a specialist within two weeks of referral by their

> GP, but has stayed silent about the waits for treatment.

>

> Delays are now so long in some hospitals that they could be

> besieged by compensation claims from patients. Legal precedent

> suggests damages must be paid if cancer patients suffer due to

> waiting more than six months.

>

> Dr Nick James of the Institute for Cancer Studies at the

> University of Birmingham, who conducted the survey, said: 'It

> shows a widespread failure to meet national targets for waiting

> times or guidelines, which has serious implications both for

> patient outcomes and for implementation of the National Cancer

> Plan. Tumours don't get smaller while you wait, they get bigger.

> I'm sure patients are dying unnecessarily.'

>

> Britain has far lower cancer survival rates than almost all

> other European countries. A study to be published later this

> year by the World Health Organisation is expected to show that

> if cancer treatment in Britain was up to the European average it

> would save about 10,000 lives a year.

>

> The Government's target is for all cancer patients to start

> radiotherapy within four weeks of their consultant deciding they

> need it. Medical evidence suggests that if they wait any longer,

> the cancer could grow, reducing their chances of survival.

>

> However, the leaked report shows that the number of patients

> starting treatment within the target time has fallen from 68 per

> cent in 1998 to 32 per cent in 2000.

>

> The average waiting time for radiotherapy has risen from 5.1

> weeks in 1999 to six weeks in 2000, but there are huge

> variations. At Brighton and Hammersmith hospitals, waiting times

> are three months, and in another hospital, not named in the

> report, one in 10 patients has to wait more than eight months

> for treatment.

>

> Karol Sikora, professor of cancer medicine at Hammersmith

> Hospital, west London, said: 'Waiting times are getting worse,

> but because of the government spin, expectations are getting so

> much higher.'

>

> Liam Fox, the Shadow Health Secretary, said: 'It's clear the

> service is slipping backwards - it's the result of the

> Government's obsession with spin and targets.

>

> 'If you keep diverting funding into projects designed for

> the PR machine rather than patients, this is the inevitable

> consequence.'

>

> Britain has about half the number of radiotherapy machines

> per million people as France or Germany, and a third the number

> of the US. However, the main reason for the delays is shortages

> of radiographers, with about 500 vacancies. A third of people

> who train as radiographers never enter the profession because

> the pay is so bad.

>

> Many hospitals have to turn their machines off for days each

> week because they are so short-staffed. The Government has

> bought 34 new radiotherapy machines in the past two years, but

> they have mainly been used to replace old ones rather than to

> increase the number in operation, because there would be no one

> to staff them.

>

> Mike Richards, the Government's Cancer Tsar, said:

> 'Historically, there has a been a shortage of radiographers but

> the number of radiographers has gone up by 10 per cent since

> 1997.

>

> 'However, we accept there are still not enough, and that

> people are waiting too long for treatment.

>

> 'That is why we are making every effort to increase numbers,

> for example by increasing training places, raising awareness

> among school leavers and introducing the new grade of assistant

> radiographer. Obviously it takes time to turn the situation

> around.'

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/02 15:30:10 GMT Standard Time, mem121

writes:

 

 

> More hospitals failing treatment targets. Doctors urge

> > change as delays cost lives

> >

>

and most of the ones meeting targets are doing so by dumping patients as

quickly as possible and telling them they have to contact their GP if they

have further problems. It happened to me, no diagnosis, no treatment but

because my weight had 'stabilised' (thyroid problems) for that particular

visit, I was discharged. My weight soon started to go up again as I had been

ill for a few weeks and had also been on holiday to 2 very hot countries and

had not eaten in the second one (Thailand) as I did not trust the food. All

of their lists are a total farce.

 

Marianne