Medicine in the media

The latest medical scandal is that dead bodies are left on hospital wards for ‘hours’ before they are taken to the hospital morgue (so says the Herald in Glasgow, the Scotsman in Edinburgh, the Telegraph, the Independent and BBC News) . I discern a distinct lack of a story here.

Dying happens, and I am glad that, as reported, staff on the wards in the hospital thought it appropriate that relatives, friends and chaplains were able to spend some time with the deceased person before the body was removed. That seems humane. While private single rooms are nice, old style Nightingale wards are what the NHS has stocks of. The issue seems to have been that a visiting relative of another (live) patient complained that, on a large ward, and despite the curtains being drawn around the bed, the dead man’s face was visible, uncovered, on a pillow.

Death is sometimes tragic, and often sad, but we do ourselves no favours by attempting to remove ourselves from all witness of it. What, really, do we think happens to our body when we die? The hospitals have apologised, which I am disappointed by; they should have said that caring well for dying people, and caring well for the recently bereaved is immensely important and they are proud of what they have done. There is nothing to apologise for. The inevitability of death is hardly the NHS’s fault.

Sex sells. I suppose this is why the results of a study entitled ”Sildenafil Treatment of Women with Antidepressant Associated Sexual Dysfunction” were reported with great enthusiasm around the world after they were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama). Yet the study is interesting for a number of reasons.

Rest of column here.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is proposing that four drugs licensed for the treatment of renal cancer are not to be funded; they are not, we are told, ‘cost effective’. Charities, doctors groups and patients are reported today as condemning the situation with strong criticism of NICE. However, there are surely other criticisms due. If the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing these drugs wanted to make them ‘cost effective’ then they could reduce the cost until they are.

The problem with so many ‘wonder drugs’ is that one is prone to wonder drug fatigue. So is the new prostate cancer drug, abiraterone, lauded on so many front pages today the real thing? “Cancer drug could save the lives of 10,000  a year” says the Times, and it’s a big ‘could’. 

It’s a bit unusual for a study containing only 21 patients and which is in the initial stages (phase I) of testing as a treatment to receive such widespread and enthusiastic publicity. Apparently there was a briefing for journalists (not usually the case for releasing research) which probably contributed to just so many headlines. There are, after all, thousands of small studies published in thousands of medical journals across the world ever week. While some of the comments made by some people approached for views on the study are rightly cautious, I am still concerned that there appears to be an awful lot of enthusiasm about a drug that really is still in the initial stages of its assessment. 

The abstract for the paper is here.  And a conflict of interest: I found at least two more things declared as wonder-type-drugs in the papers today, and I don’t believe in wonder drugs.

I am always dubious about being interviewed (I prefer asking the questions.) I worry about how able I am to say what I mean to say, and often realise there was a better way of saying what I was trying to -  but half an hour after I’ve left the building.

A piece I wrote last year about the ‘cervical cancer vaccine’ attracted attention from both pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination lobbyists. 

Margaret McCartney’s Blog

This blog is no longer updated but it remains open as an archive.

A forum on healthcare policy and professional issues, by Glasgow-based GP and FT Weekend columnist Margaret McCartney.

FT Blogs