Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Sarah Wollaston

Friday 16th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Principally, there are issues with funding and complexity. The Bill fails to recognise the science and the issues that a vast, sprawling database might cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred to the desirability of the public being able to access a database and gave the example of male pattern baldness. There would be vast profits to be made by the quackery industry from male pattern baldness products. I envisage a vast, sprawling database of anecdotal treatments, and I am afraid it would act as free advertising for the quacks of this world. It is an invitation to quackery.

I started in medicine in the late ’80s and worked for a while in paediatrics. The prognosis for children with leukaemia was grim, but today most of the children diagnosed with the same conditions will survive and thrive, not because of access to a vast, sprawling database of unconnected, anecdotal treatments but because of the meticulous progress of medical research, whereby with thousands of people we compare existing treatments with innovative treatments and find out which are genuinely the best. Any single anecdotal treatment might be effective in one single patient, but that does not tell us whether, when applied to a population, it is better or not.

Another problem with the Bill is the danger that it would undermine medical research. In effect, it would give private clinics the opportunity to offer anecdotal treatments as a way of bypassing clinical trials. When individuals, and particularly parents, are desperate because they have a dreadful diagnosis, they are at their most vulnerable to the claims of individuals who say, for example, “Look at the database and see how it worked for Mr Smith.” They might be lured into thinking that was the best way forward. Someone in a very vulnerable place might be lured into not taking part in a clinical trial by the siren call of an anecdotal treatment recorded on a publicly accessible database. I am afraid that the Bill would undermine research, and that is why the vast majority of bodies are very unhappy about it.

My hon. Friend should reflect on all the concerns that have been expressed about the Bill, and think about how science moves us forward. We progress not by a series of anecdotal treatments but through a solid research community.

We need greater access to clinical trials. The searchable database set up by the National Institute for Health Research is a welcome step forward, but it is rather clunky. Patients need to be able to see very clearly what trials are available and be able to take part in them. There is progress, people are surviving today with treatments based on clinical trials that may have taken place 10 years ago and many go on themselves to take part in clinical trials that will benefit future generations. It is absolutely vital that we continue to support this approach.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend—a good friend—for giving way. Does she believe that there is no place for any sort of list whatsoever and that the system should be left as it is, or is she suggesting that a list could be made up? I understand all her inhibitions and worries about such a list, but should it be considered?

[Dr Wollaston]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry pointed out, many of these bodies would like to have such a register, but they would also like to be able to guide how it should look and to have it within the existing research framework.

The Bill suggests that doctors are not already innovating, and that this is about fear of litigation. The original Bill was based on the premise that fear of litigation was stopping innovation. In fact, the position is very clear if we read what a number of bodies have said. My hon. Friend quoted some individual examples, but the vast majority of opinion from the medical community and the research community is that, genuinely, it is not fear of litigation that stops innovation. Every aspect of this Bill is based on a false premise, I am afraid. I do not want to detain the House by reading out all the various quotes on why the fear of litigation does not stop innovation, but he will know that that is the case.

We face the danger of confusing the existing legal framework. Many have expressed their concern that we will end up with a sort of Heaton-Harris defence for those who have undertaken perhaps rather dangerous experimental treatments billed as innovation. My hon. Friend cited the case of the children who suffered from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and that is very sad, but the Bill has an underlying assumption that all innovation is a good thing whereas the lesson of history is that it can be extremely dangerous and harmful. We need to be very careful about what we mean by innovation, and to accept that there are also very dangerous innovations. If, as a result of this well-intentioned Bill, we inadvertently end up with people being, in effect, experimented on by irresponsible doctors who are able to get off scot-free, we will have to come back to this place and amend it.

I would like to give my hon. Friend an example based on the case of somebody from my constituency who wrote to me to say that he was concerned that the Government were not doing enough with regard to experimental treatments. His specific example was a bogus treatment called GcMAF. The company promoting this entirely bogus treatment—it has a number of clinics in Europe and Guernsey—is very concerned that it cannot use it in this country because it is prevented from doing so by the current legislative environment. Well, jolly good. It puts out literature saying

“we state that if you have terminal stage 4…cancer, have not had chemotherapy, and you do the GcMAF protocol, you have an 80% chance of being cancer free in a year.”

That is the kind of claim that such doctors put out. In other words, the company is not only promoting its own product, but actively discouraging people from having a treatment that could help.

Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Bob Stewart and Sarah Wollaston

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

As a former police victim examiner and doctor, I have seen deeply traumatised women in the middle of the night in the immediate aftermath of horrific sexual violence. I have also, as a doctor, met women in their 80s and 90s who are still suffering a lifetime of consequences. There is nothing new about sexual violence, but what has changed is the normalisation and acceptance of sexual violence within our society, and that is something that we really have to address. I am proud to be a patron of Devon Rape Crisis, and I welcome the £40 million that has gone towards setting up a network of rape crisis centres around the country. When I was a victim examiner, that was not available.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am shocked that my hon. Friend suggests that there is a normalisation of violence. Will she define exactly what she means?

[Dr Wollaston]

That is an important point, but before I come to it, I would like to pay tribute to the 27 remarkable, talented and skilled volunteer women who work for Devon Rape Crisis in my area.

I will address my hon. Friend’s point. What do I mean by “normalisation”? Well, for example, 80% of 15 to 17-year-old boys are now regularly accessing hardcore pornography. To my mind, that constitutes normalisation, as does the issue of sexting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned, and the extent to which it goes unchallenged. One might say that this is a milder example, but when I go into the Tea Rooms in the House of Commons and see colleagues reading newspapers with images that objectify women, I find that offensive. I find it a normalisation that across the country young girls are sitting in households where they see such sexualisation of women as a normal portrayal of women. People may find me prudish, but I assure hon. Members that there is nothing that makes me blush. These are not blushes, but anger. That is what I would term as normalisation, and I hope I have answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for her explanation.

[Dr Wollaston]

That is wonderful.

It is crucial that we challenge through education the normalisation of sexualisation and violence towards women, but it has to be the right education. We need to make better use of peer educators. It is no use having an embarrassed teacher who blushes when talking about sex and sexual violence. Often, the best educators are peer educators, particularly those who have been victims and are prepared to talk about the impact that has had on their lives. We want the right people delivering that education, and of course “the right people” includes families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes pointed out, parents should be aware of what their children are accessing and not be embarrassed to talk to them and challenge attitudes as they develop.

We also need to do something about prosecution and the number of people being brought to book for such crimes. Partly, that is about encouraging women to report crimes. From having spoke to women, I know how incredibly challenging that can be and how brave women have to be to come forward and go through the criminal justice system, so it is disappointing that there seems to be a perception in some quarters that women should not be encouraged to report these crimes. In my opinion, that amounts to collusion in a process that says, “Don’t report!” We need to challenge those attitudes and provide the kind of support given by Rape Crisis and the professionals in sexual assault referral centres across the country.

In conclusion, we need to challenge attitudes, encourage reporting, put an end to normalisation and see an improvement in the support provided through our criminal justice system in order to ensure that perpetrators of sexual crimes against women know that they will pay for their crimes.