19 year old loses her battle with cervical cancer, having been told she was too young to have a smear test !!

[BazzaS]

It was my understanding that once a female became sexually active, she entered the risk category !.

 

So why not remove the age barrier and confirm that all sexually active females be given the test, regardless of their age !

 

It seems so obvious, doesn't it. Screening in over 25's = good, and there is a screening test available, so it must be good to do so in under 25's.

 

Were there to be no downside to routine screening in the under 25's, it'd be so.

 

Were screening to actually prevent cervical cancer in under 25's, it'd be so.

 

But, there is a downside, and it doesn't prevent cervical cancer in under 25's, and it could cause more harm, not only by people (including doctor's) being falsely reassured by doing the wrong test, in the wrong timeframe.

[citizenB]

Seems to have slowed down a bit.. although 320,000 signatures so far

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Seems to have slowed down a bit.. although 320,000 signatures so far

What publicity is this getting elsewhere?

[citizenB]

What publicity is this getting elsewhere?

 

I think it took off on Social Media.. twitter and FB, plus the Nationals highlighted it. Other than that, Brig.. I dont know.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think it took off on Social Media.. twitter and FB, plus the Nationals highlighted it. Other than that, Brig.. I dont know.

My niece has just been she is clear but further test will not be automatically arranged which after all the times she has been referred is worrying.

 

 

So I will send out a few "reminders" to contacts tomorrow to see if we can get a boost to this important petition.

[citizenB]

[worried33]

age discrimination needs to stop in the NHS, its clear it exists.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

age discrimination needs to stop in the NHS, its clear it exists.

It is now only the young who suffer age discrimination fro the NHS.

[BazzaS]

age discrimination needs to stop in the NHS, its clear it exists.

 

It isn't age discrimination to say "we won't do routine cervical screening below x years old" if it is based on research that shows the benefit of ROUTINE screening is less than the HARM it causes......

[worried33]

every month I read stories about young people dieing because a doctor had the attitude their illness just wasn't likely or possible for their age. Doctors cannot work on assumptions, they need to explore all possibilities.

 

e.g. my niece had a blood test, then had to have another one a week later because on the first blood test they didn't test her for the other thing, why don't they routinely check for everything on blood tests?

 

so death is not bad enough to justify screening?

[BazzaS]

every month I read stories about young people dieing because a doctor had the attitude their illness just wasn't likely or possible for their age. Doctors cannot work on assumptions, they need to explore all possibilities.

 

e.g. my niece had a blood test, then had to have another one a week later because on the first blood test they didn't test her for the other thing, why don't they routinely check for everything on blood tests?

 

so death is not bad enough to justify screening?

 

No : "death isn't bad enough to justify screening" when

a) screening that age group won't prevent them from dying of cervical cancer, while

b) screening will cause (non-death) harm.

 

Routine screening saves lives in over 25's.

Routine screening doesn't in under 25's.

 

I've previously posted the NHS's links to this, where the EVIDENCE has been analysed.

[Nystagmite]

As I understand it, her death and situation is rare. Hence why only over 25s are only routinely screened.

[BazzaS]

As I understand it, her death and situation is rare. Hence why only over 25s are only routinely screened.

 

Not just that : but if she had symptoms what she needed was urgent colposcopy, NOT routine screening.

[worried33]

As I understand it, her death and situation is rare. Hence why only over 25s are only routinely screened.

 

rare isn't never tho, we cant provide care based on probabilities.

 

really all possibilities should always be explored.

[BazzaS]

rare isn't never tho, we cant provide care based on probabilities.

 

really all possibilities should always be explored.

 

We MUST provide care based on probabilities .... It is "health economics". (Unless you are willing to pay for a massive [potentially unlimited?] expansion in NHS funding).

 

Otherwise we'd have to have teams of cardiac surgeons standing by (idle) "just in case there is a sudden surge in need for cardiac surgeons to 10 times normal levels"

 

I return to the example of the young lady that died:

Do you think the problem was a lack of routine screening?

Or do you think the problem was the lack of an urgent colposcopy?

 

Be careful you aren't asking them to spend (finite resources) on fixing what you think was "the cause of the problem" - that wasn't the cause.

 

Do you think routine screening in under 25's will save a single life?.

How many extra women under 25 need to be screened to save one life (by comparison with the [more appropriate] urgent referral for symptoms) - n.b. I'm not asking "how many to detect one cancer", but "how many extra to save that one extra life" ; the answer is in the research I've cited, by the way.

 

If after considering the evidence you still want screening in under 25's : what cost do you think this will have (put aside financial cost for the moment) but consider ALSO the 'cost' in pre-term deliveries, the "worried well", and increased referral times for colposcopy for those who need it.

[rebel11]

Everyone has a right to quality Health Care regardless of the cost, prevention is better then cure, there are so many initiatives that could vastly improve the NHS.

 

Cuba has one of the best Health Services in the world.

 

http://www.bihr.org.uk/projects/human-rights-in-healthcare

[BazzaS]

Everyone has a right to quality Health Care regardless of the cost, prevention is better then cure, there are so many initiatives that could vastly improve the NHS.

 

Cuba has one of the best Health Services in the world.

 

http://www.bihr.org.uk/projects/human-rights-in-healthcare

 

Everyone has the right to quality healthcare : agreed. Regardless of the cost? disagree : you can only disregard costs if willing to pay for it in increased taxation, or less spending elsewhere, otherwise where is the extra spending money coming from?

 

Prevention is better than cure. There are many initiatives that could improve the NHS : agreed.

Spending resources on ROUTINE cervical screening for the under 25's: not an initiative that would improve the NHS for the reasons I've cited previously.

 

Cuba?. OK, lets look in a bit more depth.

The WHO has indeed held Cuba's healthcare model up as an example of what is achievable : but academic reviews stress that the model is applicable for the developing world.

Cuban health authorities give large credit for the country’s impressive health indicators to the preventive, primary-care emphasis pursued for the last four decades. These indicators – which are close or equal to those in developed countries

 

So, with less resources they do close to or as well as developed countries. That doesn't mean that applying the techniques in developed countries will grant a linear equivalent improvement!.

What about the downsides?

But one should not romanticize Cuban health care. The system is not designed for consumer choice or individual initiatives. There is no alternative, private-payer health system. Physicians get government benefits such as housing and food subsidies, but they are paid only about $20 per month. Their education is free, and they are respected, but they are unlikely to attain personal wealth. Cuba is a country where 80% of the citizens work for the government, and the government manages the budgets.

 

Try that in the NHS, and salaries (the NHS's biggest expenditure!) would have the be reduced, or spending massively increased. Impose big salary cuts ("those doctors being paid so much for their easy lives"??) and those same doctors may well up and leave for Europe, Australia or New Zealand ......

Sure, many of those doctors are paid well, but what did they have to sacrifice to get to where they are?, and if a new deal is imposed upon them, would they stay or go? (Consider the exodus of junior doc's when "Modernising Medical Careers" came in and gave uncertainty as to training posts....)

 

I find much of your 'analysis' superficial: such as : It is easy to say 'Human rights, innit?', but when it comes to enforcing those rights, analysis in more depth is required.

 

What right is being infringed, in what way?. An Article right,? what section are you planning on relying on? or breach of which section(s) of the Human Rights Act 1998 do you intend to highlight?

 

Is it an absolute right, or a qualified right? (Articles 1-6 are absolute rights. If a qualified right, is there any other absolute or qualified right that needs to be balanced against it?).

[worried33]

yes in my mind health has no price, you cant have a country that moans about sick people not working etc. and then not provide reasonable health care because financial shortcuts are been made.

 

Taxes can be raised to pay for better quality NHS, and the NHS itself can have its fat trimmed. Notably stop all the outsourcing which only serves to make the private sector profits.

[citizenB]

Several posts have been unapproved from this thread and the thread is now CLOSED.

 

If SHIRLI wishes to start their own thread then they can do so, but the posts made are irrelevant to this thread.

 

Sorry Brig, but your posts have also been unapproved - if another thread is started then I would be happy to relocate these posts to the new thread.