<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NHS Gives Crackheads Precedence over Cancer Victims</title>
	<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/07/22/nhs-gives-crackheads-precedence-over-cancer-victims/</link>
	<description>Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Catron</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/07/22/nhs-gives-crackheads-precedence-over-cancer-victims/#comment-4514</link>
		<dc:creator>Catron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/07/22/nhs-gives-crackheads-precedence-over-cancer-victims/#comment-4514</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;The scheme is inspired by one already operating successfully in America.&lt;/em&gt;

They only bunged this in to give folks like you a talisman with which to ward off the obvious implications of this story. A University study isn’t the same thing as a successful program. 

&lt;em&gt;As for what works, new drugs are not miracle cures, in particular the new targeted cancer agents.&lt;/em&gt;

The drug to which my link refers is widely prescribed throughout Europe and the U.S., and it has already been licensed in Britain. It’s just that the bureaucrats won’t authorize its actual use (perhaps because it will cut into the iPods-for-crackheads program).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>The scheme is inspired by one already operating successfully in America.</em></p>
<p>They only bunged this in to give folks like you a talisman with which to ward off the obvious implications of this story. A University study isn’t the same thing as a successful program. </p>
<p><em>As for what works, new drugs are not miracle cures, in particular the new targeted cancer agents.</em></p>
<p>The drug to which my link refers is widely prescribed throughout Europe and the U.S., and it has already been licensed in Britain. It’s just that the bureaucrats won’t authorize its actual use (perhaps because it will cut into the iPods-for-crackheads program).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/07/22/nhs-gives-crackheads-precedence-over-cancer-victims/#comment-4507</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/07/22/nhs-gives-crackheads-precedence-over-cancer-victims/#comment-4507</guid>
		<description>I see you're propogating this nonsense across blogs...

Oh dear - do I detect knee=jerk neo-con thinking of the first order. It really would help if you actually looked at the material you selectively quote from - the Times article says:

‘Under the guidelines expected to be published by Nice this week, heroin and cocaine users will be given the financial rewards if they test free of drugs. The scheme is inspired by one already operating successfully in America.’

Wow - did you see that ‘operating successfully in America’?

And it goes on:

‘Research by the University of Connecticut found cocaine and methamphetamine users stayed drug free for longer when they had the chance to win prizes such as telephones, stereos, DVD players and televisions. Every time addicts gave a negative drugs test they were given tickets for the draw. They “earned” an increasing number of tickets for every week that they remained drug free.’

So if it works in America, it could work in the UK - the idea being that we introduce things that actually work rather than, say, locking 2 million people up as you do in the US.

As for what works, new drugs are not miracle cures, in particular the new targeted cancer agents. Nearly all the evidence so far comes from ongoing trials and there are great trade-offs to be made between a few weeks extra survival and quality of life, given the often major side-effects of drug combinations. No society can afford not to make decisions about what drugs will be resourced and when - and we must look at the evidence of efficacy.

And of course in the US there are vast dispariteis in access to the best medical care such as preventive screening - not surprising given it’s the developed country with the worst wealth and health inequalities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see you&#8217;re propogating this nonsense across blogs&#8230;</p>
<p>Oh dear - do I detect knee=jerk neo-con thinking of the first order. It really would help if you actually looked at the material you selectively quote from - the Times article says:</p>
<p>‘Under the guidelines expected to be published by Nice this week, heroin and cocaine users will be given the financial rewards if they test free of drugs. The scheme is inspired by one already operating successfully in America.’</p>
<p>Wow - did you see that ‘operating successfully in America’?</p>
<p>And it goes on:</p>
<p>‘Research by the University of Connecticut found cocaine and methamphetamine users stayed drug free for longer when they had the chance to win prizes such as telephones, stereos, DVD players and televisions. Every time addicts gave a negative drugs test they were given tickets for the draw. They “earned” an increasing number of tickets for every week that they remained drug free.’</p>
<p>So if it works in America, it could work in the UK - the idea being that we introduce things that actually work rather than, say, locking 2 million people up as you do in the US.</p>
<p>As for what works, new drugs are not miracle cures, in particular the new targeted cancer agents. Nearly all the evidence so far comes from ongoing trials and there are great trade-offs to be made between a few weeks extra survival and quality of life, given the often major side-effects of drug combinations. No society can afford not to make decisions about what drugs will be resourced and when - and we must look at the evidence of efficacy.</p>
<p>And of course in the US there are vast dispariteis in access to the best medical care such as preventive screening - not surprising given it’s the developed country with the worst wealth and health inequalities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
