Slashdot Mirror
Hospitals Look to a Nuclear Tool to Fight Cancer
The feed points us to a NYTimes article about hospitals using particle accelerators to treat cancer. While expensive, proponents say that the proton beams generated by the accelerators are more precise than conventional X-ray radiation therapy. This results in fewer side effects and reduced irradiation of surrounding tissue. The technology's critics say that the cost is not justified by a measurable increase in the level of care given to the patients. Nevertheless, this is an excellent example of "pure scientific research" leading to a useful, unrelated technique. From the NYTimes:
"Tumors in or near the eye, for instance, can be eradicated by protons without destroying vision or irradiating the brain. Protons are also valuable for treating tumors in brains, necks and spines, and tumors in children, who are especially sensitive to the side effects of radiation."
Will those who think this is too expensive opt for the older, broader, X-Rays when they develop cancer?
A lot of the cost of medical care is due to malpractice lawyers, like Edwards.
Correct me if I am wrong (I am not in the US and haven't had any serious illnesses), but isn't medical insurance cover up to a certain limit of dollar value (usually extremely high), which makes the cost of a treatment irrelevant so long as it is scientifically proven to have a noticeable beneficial effect?
If insurance companies refusing a treatment over cost disgusts and shocks you, you might be interested to know that active government policy in every country with free health care (including those highlighted by Michael Moore in 'Sicko') consider on an ongoing basis as a matter of government policy which treatments that WILL NOT be given to people even if they are proven to cure, on the basis of costs, and the list is typically long. And as this case from the UK demonstrates;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7151328.stm
Does it happen that you have a terminal illness that could be cured by a proven workable drug that is unfortunately not on the government-approved-expenses list? Too bad for you. Do you want to pay for this drug yourself? Well, that sucks, because you are not legally allowed to, in that case you would have to pay for your entire treatment yourself. Of course, you could always travel to a third-world country and have the drug illegally injected, at the risk of losing your house if it's discovered.
It would therefore shock my predictive abilities to the core if any country with a free and universal health care system offered particle accelerator treatments earlier than any country with privately funded health care.
This intended to balance out the general hatred for private medical companies and love for government health care systems with some hard facts and priorities that inevitably are going to be made.
I visited a proton accelarator for cancer treatment near Ghent in Belgium 15 years ago. In which way is this new?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
My guess (with reading the nice article) is that the main focus is for the young... like my 8 year old with a malignant brain tumor. We looked into proton radiation vs traditional radiation when he was being treated. There certainly are risks with the proton version but some nice *possible* benefits. That said, the radiation oncologist was hesitant about the greater amount of energy in the proton beam... not sure what was meant by that as our decision was made mostly on other factors.
If you have the choice of using a medication that has a chance of curing even one more patient and medication that will cure even one less the "cost" option is simply no longer part of the equation.
That, too, is based on a "fake happy commie concept of fairness". At some point you have to draw the line. To wit: treatment X is able to help 1% of patients (and we don't know which 1%). If the treatment is only $10/patient, it's certainly worth it, but what if it's $500,000 per treatment? You're now spending 50 million dollars per life saved. "Can't put a price on life!" you say? Maybe not, but remember, although life may not have a price, the treatment still does, and taxpayers/insurance payers end up footing the bill. There's also opportunity costs - if you're spending 100 million a year to effectively save 2 people from some rare cancer, you lose that 100 million to apply toward other things (nutrition, immunization, etc.) which may have the potential to help thousands of people a year. It sucks, I know, but it's a cruel fact of life that you have to prioritize, and that you just can't do everything for everyone.
Now, that's not to say that the NHS isn't FUBAR in its priorities, and isn't wasting money on sub-standard treatments which could be better applied to more effective ones. Wasting money on cheap, ineffective treatments is worse than wasting money on expensive, barely effective treatments.
Sorry, but the FIRST goal of medicine is 'Do no harm' and yes that has been extended to 'Do not cure someone by BANKRUPTING THEM'. Sure wish the U.S. of A. would catch on to that idea. Here the docs will cure anything as long as you have insurance. What? The insurance company won't cover that treatment? Shocking! Hope the patient has some money 'cause the doc is gonna get his.