Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu
I am 5 years of retirement amd through out my life l have paid my taxes and National Insurance to insure that my life is worth survival, so why is it if l become ill, would not be able to get the drugs l need to survive, as the NHS cannot afford the drug.
We have heard today that a drug costing approx under a pound is going to be used for a certain illness, would not put a strain on the NHS.
The cost of a life is paramount, therefore the NHS should provide that drug, no matter what the cost, we have already heard that another drug that prolong life is too expensive to buy. WHY isn't life important, and we are paying for that drug via Insurance, there is something wrong somewhere.
|
I am not really sure what you are on about. But, Damien has expressed a massive problem the NHS faces quite well.
The NHS has limited resources. New drugs and treatments are often experimental, and often expensive. In the case of certain illnesses, they can cost the NHS thousands of pounds over the course of a treatment.
The choice the NHS faces is harsh, but actually quite simple. Put yourself in the position of a Hospital manager. A patient has (say) cancer. There is a radical new drug that costs 10s of thousands of pounds, and may help them live a little longer. You also have 10 people wanting hip replacement. There is not enough in your budget to treat all 11 patients, and the cancer treatment costs the same as 5 hip replacements. What do you do? Save the one person (who might live 1 year longer), and condemn the other patients to another year or so of agony?
Oh, and before you start accusing the drug companies of profiteering. Yes, they do make high profits. However, do you know how much it costs to develop and test drugs? I don't know how much it costs now, but in the early 90s, I was told it cost Pfizer £100,000,000 to develop and test Viagra (a friend worked for them at the time).