Medical Innovation Bill

The Medical Innovation Bill (informally called the Saatchi Bill) was a private members' bill sponsored by Maurice Saatchi which was considered by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. If passed into law the bill would have permitted doctors to use unconventional medical treatments in certain circumstances.

The bill's proposals were criticised by medical bodies, and it failed to progress through the House of Commons after the Liberal Democrats declined to support it.

Background

Following the death of his wife Josephine Hart to ovarian cancer, Maurice Saatchi campaigned for a change to the UK law which he believed held doctors back from recommending innovative treatments out of fear of litigation.[1] Saatchi said that he believed that health provision in the UK was "innovation averse" and that the current standard treatment offered to people with cancer was "degrading, medieval and ineffective" leading "only to death".[2]

Saatchi's Medical Innovation Bill proposed that doctors be permitted to use non-standard treatments for any medical condition.[3] The bill was formally introduced in 2013 and was co-adopted by the government in its passage through parliament.[2]

Response

The proposed legislation enjoyed some popular support and favourable press coverage, but drew a critical response from some medical and legal bodies, patient groups and charities.[1][3]

An editorial in The Lancet Oncology said that Saatchi was promoting "precisely the type of emotional response that evidence-based practice seeks to avoid", that the current UK law already provided for medical innovation, and that the bill's provisions threatened to undermine the hippocratic oath.[4]

Cancer Research UK has said there is "no pressing need" for new legislation.[5]

In November 2014 more than 100 medical professionals signed a letter to The Times saying that the existing law did not impede innovation as has been claimed, and that the proposed new legislation could have the unintended consequence of weakening the evidence base for research by leading to an accumulation of merely anecdotal evidence.[6]

Some doctors, patients and charities had looked favourably on the Bill.[7] In June 2014 a number of doctors and patients wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph in support of the bill.[8]

gollark: It is not. Errors are bad so osmarksmalloc™ simply does not errors.
gollark: Well, it looks like malloc is erroring. osmarksmalloc™ literally cannot fail.
gollark: Use osmarksmalloc™ instead?
gollark: Yes. Via very long-running MitM attacks on your internet connection, I actually replaced all the language documentation you viewed with docs for different Forth dialects.
gollark: Same syntax, even. How creative.

References
  1. Ross N (2 June 2014). "The 'Saatchi Bill': can a PR guru cure cancer?". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved December 2014. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. "Lord Saatchi's personal appeal". Daily Telegraph. 26 January 2014. Retrieved December 2014. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. Hills D (19 November 2014). "Attacking critics is no way to fix the Saatchi bill". The Guardian. Retrieved December 2014. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. "Undermining the Hippocratic Oath: the Medical Innovation Bill". The Lancet Oncology (Editorial). 27 November 2014. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71139-8.
  5. "Doctors sign letter of opposition to Medical Innovation Bill". Cancer Research UK. 13 November 2014. Retrieved December 2014. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. "Medical innovation". The Times (Letter). 13 November 2014. (subscription required)
  7. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10928220/Saatchis-Bill-would-benefit-both-patients-and-doctors.html
  8. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/saatchi-bill/10929131/Leading-doctors-join-with-cancer-patients-to-back-Lord-Saatchis-Medical-Innovation-Bill.html
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.