Morning:
13°c
'NHS told me to dump £16,000 of cancer pills'
Anna Davis15.09.08
A woman who wants to donate almost £16,000 worth of life extending drugs to cancer sufferers has been told to throw them away by the NHS.
Hundreds of dying patients are being denied the same medication on the NHS because it is not "cost effective".
But London lawyer Babette M‰rzheuser-Wood has a threemonth course of the expensive pills lying around unused.
The 42-year-old's father Paul was prescribed the medication as a last resort in his fight against multiple myeloma, an incurable cancer of the blood.
But he died from the illness just as he was beginning the treatment and his family fear the sought-after medication will now be wasted.
Mrs M‰rzheuser-Wood said: "I just want to tear my hair out. My father took only one of the pills out of the blister pack which would have lasted for three months. It cost around £16,000 and I don't want to throw away something that cost so much.
"This is medication that could extend someone's life.
"It seems mad or sad that we cannot donate the drug to other people who are dying and desperately need it."
Mr M‰rzheuser, who lived near D¸sseldorf in Germany, had private health insurance, which funded his ¤20,000 course of Revlimid.
The drug is not normally funded by the health service in Britain. Currently patients who pay for expensive drugs risk losing their right to free NHS care.
Mrs M‰rzheuser-Wood, from Sevenoaks, Kent, said: "I am a lawyer and don't want to illegally supply the drug.
"I tried to give it to cancer charities for research but they said they couldn't use it. I hate red tape. Surely there must be a way to make this work with these expensive drugs? " Mrs M‰rzheuser-Wood spoke out after a cancer sufferer with just months to live won a High Court battle for the same life-prolonging drug last this week.
Colin Ross, 55, mounted a legal challenge to his NHS Trust's refusal to fund Revlimid. Judge Simon Grenfell overturned West Sussex PCT's decision that the medication would not be costeffective.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "While we appreciate the intention to return unused medicines for use by another cancer patient, we cannot promote the reuse of returned medicines. Recycling of medicines is both unethical and unsafe.
"This is because the quality of medicines returned from patients following storage in their homes cannot be guaranteed."
Reader views (5)
Could be a long shot but perhaps the drugs could be returned to the makers of Revlimid for forwarding or replacement directly to the department of health ?
- Ron, Sydney, Australia
If I had cancer, I would be willing to try any medication that had a chance of prolonging my life, never mind curing it. If I couldn't get this medication on prescription, I would be so grateful for someone donating this amount of medication to me. I've already been in a situation where it's been suggested that I have a change of medication, purely because of the cost, and thankfully my surgery are prepared to continue my medications for the time being.
This situation is yet another example of lunatics taking over the asylum. Someone who had experienced the trauma of cancer or who had family or friends with it would never have been so crass as to tell this woman to throw the medication away, and I hope she finds a way to give them to a more deserving cause than the dustbin.
- A. Bell, London, UK
In this litigation conscious age, relatives of someone using recycled meds but who died anyway could (and lets face it, often WOULD, either through grief, more likely, or opportunism) try to blame the treatment rather than the illness for that death. Thats more money out of the supplier's purse both for the court costs and the payouts, if forthcoming. Thats more money taken away from others wanting treatment paid for out of that same purse.
Re-use of recovered medications under one set of circumstances would inevitably lead to demands for acceptance under others too. Such is the fairly normal response of the specialty-specific uneducated, and certainly, the desperate. A poor precidence.
- Rogan, DFW TX
This is difficult one. I can see the point from both sides. You should never to take another person’s medication. But there is a huge waste issue in this instance. I think the real issue here is why a packet of pills costs £16,000 in the first place. I know a lot of research and money goes into making new drugs, but £16,000 is surely too much to ask. It’s no doubt the case medical companies are a business like any other in which money needs to be made to pay share holders and directors.
Maybe the company heads who have a life of luxury due to the money they rake in should think about all the problems the extortionate prices cause; post code lottery’s etc. There should be no need to be asked by charities to give money to get drugs to children with aids in Africa. This is the awful truth of capitalism; the rich get richer while the poorest and neediest get nothing. In a lot of the world the poorest directly die because of this system.
- Paul, London
"...the quality of returned medicines cannot be guaranteed." I would think that any cancer sufferer who has been unable to get this medication prescribed would happily take the risk - what have they got to lose , their life?
- Robin, London, UK
