The Price of Life, BBC Documentary

Eric

My film about NHS rationing will be shown on BBC2, June 17th at 9pm.


The previews thus far are pretty nice.
'Adam Wishart's extraordinary, engrossing film deserves a prize.' Radio Times 
'deeply affecting... unsettling but vital and grimly fascinating' Mail on Sunday
'The documentary of the week' The Independent
'a fine if sombre film' Time Out
'balanced and thought-provoking' The Times
'Fascinating documentary' TV Times

The programme page is here

The picture is of Eric Rutherford, one of the patients I followed in the film. 

Start the Week

listen here

The Unbearable Cost of Living

Barnett

The Sunday Times Magazine have published an article related to my documentary The Price of Life. 



The picture is of Professor David Barnett in a NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) appraisal meeting. He is the chair, and the committee is about to decide whether or not NHS patients should get a drug called Lenalidomide.    

If you're a journalist and might like to write about the film, email me at 
adam (a) adamwishart.info and I'll send you a link.

The Price of Life

Wednesday 17 June

9.00-10.00pm BBC TWO

On a finite budget, the National Health Service can't afford to offer patients every treatment on the market, so how does the nation decide which patients should be the winners – and who should be the losers? BBC Two has secured exclusive and unprecedented access to NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), the controversial body that decides which drug treatments the NHS can afford. Its judgements have precipitated many bitter battles over the last decade but, for many, the people behind the process remain shrouded in mystery.

Focusing on cancer drug Revlimid, award-winning documentary-maker Adam Wishart follows those who must decide whether to approve the drug and those who will be affected by the outcome. They are: Professor David Barnett, chairman of the NICE appraisals committee, charged with assessing its effectiveness; cancer patients including Julia Gatt and Eric Rutherford, whose lives depend on the decision; Sol Barer, head of the American drug company that discovered Revlimid and profits from it; and NHS manager Sophia Christie, who has to deal with the financial consequences of the committee's decision.

The programme tells the compelling story of the people whose everyday lives are affected by this intricate process. Will Julia and Eric get the drug they need and, if so, will Sophia be forced to make cuts to her budget in other areas? The very human conflicts that arise open up for debate a bigger moral question – how much is life worth, and how much should society pay?

Grierson Award

Pleasingly, we just won the Grierson Award for the Best Science Documentary.

Here is a link.

Link to the film.

Hooray!

Improve Performance, Rather than Search for New cures

I’ve just finished reading Better by Atul Gawande. Like his previous book, Complications, this one is full of humane and insightful observations about the complexities of medicine.

There is one particularly fascinating chapter about performance, and how you improve performance in medicine. He tells the story of cystic fibrosis. Medicine has remarkably improved the life expectancy of patients over the last thirty years or so. In the sixties patients made it to just ten years old, now most live into theri mid thirties with some patients living much longer.

Continue reading "Improve Performance, Rather than Search for New cures" »

Too Much Health

There is a fascinating and timely report about Hormone Replacement Therapy in the Guardian today.

Survey after survey has linked hormone replacement therapy to cancer, strokes, blood clots and heart disease. Why, then, are so many women so relaxed about using it? And why do some doctors insist that the dangers are exaggerated? Sarah Boseley investigates

What it reveals is the continued attraction of HRT, more than a million women continue to take it in the UK, although for some of those women its pretty clear that taking HRT is not the optimum intervention.

What I find interesting about this is how compelling medical solutions can appear and how enduring they can be once the public first accepts them to be true. Once an idea like HRT has been promoted in the public realm, and once there is promotion of various sorts floating around, then its very difficult to get the idea our of the public imagination. None of us seem very attracted to the idea that actually medical intervention is bad for you.

I think many of us are afflicted by it. We go to doctors because we think they can help us. And they sometimes fob us off with placebos or what they think is more or less harmless sorts of drugs and interventions, such as HRT.

Its linked to my favourite piece of commentary of the year. Published on January 2nd, some of the best analysts in the business simply state,

For most Americans, the biggest health threat is not avian flu, West Nile or mad cow disease. It’s our health-care system. You might think this is because doctors make mistakes (we do make mistakes). But you can’t be a victim of medical error if you are not in the system. The larger threat posed by American medicine is that more and more of us are being drawn into the system not because of an epidemic of disease, but because of an epidemic of diagnoses.
LINK

Although this is a particularly American problem, UK patients are also afflicted. We demand and demand and demand in some situations where doing nothing might be the right thing to do.

Royal Society Book Prize

ONE IN THREE is on the shortlist of the Royal Society Book Prize.

Its great.

I especially like it because the Royal Society has such a heritage. Newton was its president, after all.

There is an article about it here.

And a comment piece here

THE TERRIBLE STORY OF HOO LOO

This is one of my favourite stories from the book. Its also one of the goriest, the rest of the book isn't quite as bloody. The picture is from the original article - unfortunately it was never included in the book. So now the story has been mentioned in the NY Times seems good to publish it here.

Hooloo2

On Saturday 9 April 1831, a year before the passage of the Anatomy Act, but a few months after the opening of the world’s first purpose-built passenger railway, a crowd of men in top hats and coat-tails showed their ‘hospital tickets’ and entered the operating theatre of Guy’s Hospital in London. Hundreds of others jostled on the street outside. An attempt had already been made by the hospital authorities to prevent a scrum by moving the date forward by three days, but the tight, gossiping community of London’s doctors had defeated the ruse.

The patient in question was a 32-year-old Chinese labourer called Hoo Loo, who had disembarked at the Royal Docks from a sailing ship, a so-called East Indiaman, with some difficulty three weeks previously. He was carrying an enormous tumour four feet in circumference, which hung from his lower abdomen, enveloping his penis, to below his knees. It was ‘of a nature and extent hitherto unseen in this country’. Although the size of Hoo Loo’s growth made it exceptional, lumps, boils and malignancies were often seen to disfigure the human form in the age before routine surgery. Hoo Loo’s had been growing for ten years, but his doctors in Canton had refused him treatment. Because it had continued to grow, he had travelled for six months to London in the belief that there the art of surgery was somewhat more advanced and that the profession would have no such qualms in operating on him. On arriving at Guy’s Hospital he must have been aware of the excitement, for as he lay waiting for the operation his days were interrupted by ‘a great number of persons of all ranks’ keen to examine this oriental curiosity.

Continue reading "THE TERRIBLE STORY OF HOO LOO" »

JANET MASLIN REVIEW - NEW YORK TIMES

"Mr. Wishart reports that during his years of writing and talking casually about cancer, he had a horrifying effect on others. Hearing him, listeners would shiver or quail or walk away. But his book does not prompt that kind of response: Mr. Wishart has done copious research and used it to shape a story more gripping than frightening ... [he] remains too erudite and civilized to succumb to fear."

How good is that?
LINK

BIO