The brave physician taking on Huge Brother

While the HSCIC stresses the alleged benefits of the data collection for epidemiological research, it plays down the commercial implications, yet I suspect it is this that is fuelling the determination to quash rebellion. Researchers have, for decades, found ways of collecting data on population health – information approved by ethics boards and scrutinised to ensure it does not violate confidentiality. Given that researchers have managed until now does suggest that having yet more data is not essential in identifying trends and patterns of illness, and the HSCIC has failed to make a convincing case for it.

Initially, the Government had intended the scheme to be compulsory, as medical records technically belong to the Health Secretary rather than patients. However, ministers have backed down and people are now able to opt out, but only if they state they wish to do so. The Government is clearly hoping most won’t bother because they believe that the new scheme will be anonymous.

I share some of Dr Gancz’s concerns about confidentiality, but I resent also the underhand way that the Government is going about this and the degree to which the public is being hoodwinked.

There are safeguards in place to protect individuals but they are not fail-safe. Given the speed of technological advancement, those safeguards will be breached in time. Maybe this doesn’t matter and, on balance, the benefits of access to such a rich seam of health data outweigh the risks. But if it is really so vital, then why not make the case and allow us to choose? If it’s simply that ministers have identified a novel source of much-needed revenue, then put the economic argument to us and, again, let us decide.

In trying to quash Dr Gancz’s act of rebellion, NHS bosses have made him a cause célèbre for those who feel the Government is becoming Big Brother-ish and dismissive of people’s concerns about confidentiality and privacy. We owe a debt to Dr Gancz, because in taking a lone, principled stand, he has ensured the issue is given the prominence it deserves and that those in power wanted to avoid.

—–

A ‘cancer envy’ campaign won’t help survival rates

_{Patrick Swayze is one of several celebrities to have died from pancreatic cancer}

To raise awareness of their cause, charities jostle for space in an increasingly crowded market place and some have resorted to shocking and attention-grabbing tactics to get heard.

But the latest campaign from the UK charity, Pancreatic Cancer Action, has gone too far. In print messages and an online film, real patients reveal the stark facts about pancreatic cancer – that, despite it being the fifth most common cancer, survival statistics remain shockingly low at just 3 per cent. Then the patients who feature go one step farther, revealing that ”I’d rather have breast cancer’’.

Of course, I understand the sentiment behind this. It is a chilling fact that pancreatic cancer survival rates remain so low and have barely improved despite decades of research, in sharp contrast to other common cancers.

Regardless of wealth or status, pancreatic cancer is a near-death sentence. Sir James Goldsmith, Luciano Pavarotti, Patrick Swayze and the journalist Simon Hoggart are among those who have succumbed to the disease.

But is ”cancer envy’’ really the way to get this message across? I recently went to a talk arranged by the charity Breast Cancer Care to highlight the plight of those with terminal breast cancer. Around 48,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK each year and nearly a third of those will go on to develop the advanced form of the disease, which is terminal. Whilst early breast cancer receives substantial media interest, advanced breast cancer gets little attention, leaving sufferers feeling isolated and forgotten.

Imagine how those women, facing death, feel when they see or hear this campaign. The fact is that all cancer is awful. It disrupts lives, causes pain, suffering and death. Surely we don’t need to descend into a ”my cancer is worse than your cancer’’ competition in order to get a message across.

——-

Why don’t hospitals train health-care assistants?

One year on from the Francis report, which was sparked by the Mid-Staffordshire scandal, and what, if anything, has changed?

An investigation by the Nuffield Trust has found that more than 80 per cent of NHS hospitals have brought in reforms since the report’s publication last February. The health service is recruiting more nurses to improve care on wards, and there is a noticeable shift in the culture around honesty and openness when it comes to mistakes.

But why, then, according to a report by the Health Services Journal, are a quarter of all hospitals not giving health-care assistants any training before they begin work on the wards?

These assistants have one of the most important jobs in a hospital. They are the people who directly interact with patients – and do so more and more now that so much of nurses’ time is taken up with administration. They are the individuals who will often be delivering the actual care.

You can’t even get a job cleaning pens in an animal shelter without undergoing training. How on earth can hospitals think it is safe and proper to allow health-care assistants to start work without proper training?

Have lessons really been learnt?

Max Pemberton’s latest book, ‘The Doctor Will See You Now’ is published by Hodder. To order a copy, call Telegraph Books on 0844 871 1515

The brave physician taking on Huge Brother