Cancer Treatments

Debate between Glyn Davies and John Pugh

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I thank all the people, from a variety of organisations, who made submissions before this debate in the hope that I could do justice to their thoughts and considerations. I may not succeed in doing so adequately, for which I apologise in advance, but other people in the Chamber, who are far better informed than me, can supplement any good, important or salient points that I fail to make.

It is a fact of the human condition that we are cell-replicating machines. I believe it is true—I am not totally certain, but I believe it is a truth—that none of the cells that were elected to this place in 2001 under the name of John Pugh are now here. They have all gradually been replaced, and some of them may actually be replaced during the course of the morning. That process goes on and on, and it is a very sophisticated one. When someone looks into the details of cellular biology, they are amazed that it occurs correctly as many times as it does. However, the longer we live, the more likely it is to go wrong, and when it goes wrong, we get the disease we know as cancer. It is a sad truth that the more we are saved from other diseases by progress in medical science, the more exposed we are to cancer.

Current stats show that, due to human longevity and the like, one in four of us are likely to die directly of cancer or a cancer-related condition. That will apply no matter what our success in investigating the environmental triggers for or the lifestyle causes of cancer.

We can all point to progress along those lines. We are no longer vulnerable to all the industrial causes of cancer, such as asbestos, and we took a momentous step forward in this place a few years ago when we backed the smoking ban, which remains the most useful thing I have done in Parliament, because it will undoubtedly reduce one of the major triggers for cancer. We now have to address other issues linked to cancer, such as obesity.

The disease is aggressive in youth and progresses slower with age, but, frankly, the longer we live, the more vulnerable we are to it. It is also true that many people will die with, but not of cancer. The challenge to any health system confronted with that crude biological fact is straightforward, and it is the same for any health system anywhere on the planet. I have divided the challenge under four headings. First, any health system needs to try to comprehend better the causes of cancer and initiate research. Secondly, any health system needs to try to prevent cancer and forfend its incidence. Thirdly, any health system—this is, of course, paramount—needs to cure people of cancer, where possible. Finally, any health and social system in any civilized society must help people living with cancer. Those four challenges are precisely the same for any health system anywhere, no matter how they are configured or delivered.

We have made substantial strides in the UK and our record should not be demeaned or lessened. During the passage through Parliament of the contentious Health and Social Care Bill, cancer stats were referred to and international comparisons were used to justify some of the changes. The oncology community had some misgivings about that, because its members felt that their real and substantive achievements were overlooked and that, for political purposes, people dwelled on what they had not achieved rather than on what they had.

The debate pack includes a good account of research by the King’s Fund and others on success in dealing with cancer. On European and international comparisons, an article in the pack states:

“While cancer deaths fell everywhere, England and Wales saw the biggest drop in mortality among males aged 15-74”—

that is, most males. The article continues:

“While mortality among women the same age declined by less, at 19%, that was the third biggest improvement”

in any civilised developed country in the world. We can, therefore, bank appreciable benefits and progress.

The difference between good and not-so-good policy is determined by the efficiency and effectiveness with which we approach the four fundamental tasks of comprehending the causes of cancer, curing people of cancer, trying to prevent cancer and trying to help people living with cancer, and by how intelligently we prioritise those tasks. An enormous amount of resources could be provided to address the problems presented by cancer, but such resources are not unlimited and we have to consider how we prioritise in every one of the four tasks. That applies to research, where people are continually examining how to prioritise the appreciable sums of money at their disposal in the most effective way. There are many debates about how we are to prioritise prevention and public health. Moreover, on prioritising treatment, recent discussions have centred on whether treatment for the elderly should be rationed or limited, because they may live longer with cancer but not actually die of it. There is also considerable debate, spearheaded by the likes of Macmillan Cancer Support, about the welfare provision for cancer patients.

I would like to turn briefly to public health, although it is not my main bone of contention. There has been a debate about how accurately we pitch our public health campaigns. Some have been excellent, particularly that on screening for bowel cancer, which I think has had an immediate and dramatic beneficial effect. My former colleague John Barrett is the former MP for Edinburgh West—he was elected in 2001—and he was diagnosed with bowel cancer through the screening programme shortly after leaving Parliament. He had absolutely no symptoms, but it is believed that it was caught in time. In fact, he was in Parliament recently and looked in pretty good shape to me. However, had the cancer not been detected—remember that he had no symptoms—it would have progressed as the years went by.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and allowing me to associate myself with the point that he is making. I am one of those whose cancer was found early, and I received treatment and survived. A younger friend of mine was diagnosed at the very same time, but his cancer was more advanced and he died aged 31. This is about catching it early and I want to emphasise the importance of screening, which saves a huge amount of lives. I have played a big part in driving forward the screening programme in Wales. Screening for bowel cancer is one of the best ways possible to save people’s lives.

[John Pugh]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right and that he is also aware that there have been debates about screening for cervical cancer, breast cancer and so on, and about the age at which that should be done and the effect it would have. Although it is possible to screen everybody all of the time, that is not the most rational way to use resources, so any screening programme needs to be judged in the light of its subsequent evidence, which is very strong indeed for the bowel screening programme.

I was slightly, not amused, but distracted by the recent Department of Health advertisements—there were big adverts on buses—stating that anyone who has been coughing for three weeks should definitely go to see their doctor, because they might have lung cancer. When the advertising programme was launched, a horrible virus had gripped my office, the most lingering symptom of which was a cough that lasted for three to five weeks. Had we all trooped to our doctors’ surgeries saying that we might have cancer, a good deal of national health service time would have been wasted. Any campaign needs to be sophisticated and reviewed in the light of evidence. The one thing that we do not want a public health campaign to do is provoke alarm, because that would distract doctors from the things that we genuinely want them to address. People are not slow to be alarmed by any suspicion of cancer, which, I believe, after pornography and some other subjects, is one of the most researched topics on the internet. It is frequently referred to on various medical sites as a suspicion, rather than a diagnosis.

The academic community also has to prioritise. A lot of people leave substantial amounts of money for cancer research and it needs to be used as effectively as possible, as do welfare payments to cancer patients. Those issues need to be prioritised—Members may care to discuss that in the context of the Government’s ambitions for the outcomes framework.

I want to concentrate on the connection between treatment and health policy. The clinical armoury and tools available to medical science are pretty well known and can be put under four headings: chemotherapy, radiotherapy—possibly supplemented by more sophisticated treatments, such as proton beam therapy—drugs and surgery. A cocktail of those methods is used to treat cancer. All, in their place, can be extraordinarily useful and effective interventions, but the key thing that determines whether they have the maximum effect on and benefit for patients is whether they are used with skill—the right skill at the right time in the right place, and probably in the hands of the right doctor or consultant.

I learned relatively recently that, although we talk broadly about categories of cancer, there are sub-categories within those categories, and not every sub-category is responsive to the same treatment. Knowing which treatment is best tailored to which patient is a genuine art, because patients and their histories are all very different, as are the remedies that work with them.

Improved outcomes are to some extent determined not simply by having the tools but using them with better and greater skill. It is the skill or its absence that explains differential outcomes. There are differential outcomes across the UK. The chance of recovering from certain cancers in some areas is greater or less than in others. The chances of acquiring certain cancers appear to be greater in some areas than others. Genuine skill—knowing what to use on what person at what time—is in extraordinarily short supply. That sort of skill, the really effective intervention, is often allied with establishments that not just treat cancer, but research into cancer. Great skill is often, not unsurprisingly, aligned with a greater understanding of what is being dealt with. Treatment of cancer is not usually a journeyman matter or one of bog-standard clinical intervention and practice. That is why organisations such as the Christie hospital have such a well-established reputation.

I know the Government have put extra money into the drugs fund. Using the right drug in the right place at the right time is a fairly refined process. People can be given drugs that work with a cancer in general, but not for that particular patient or not at that stage in the disease, by organisations relatively unaware of the futility of the intervention. Therefore, we have all understandably come to the conclusion that we need clinical networks. We need to have people dealt with in the appropriate centres of excellence. There is a genuine readiness by patients to travel as far as they need to get the treatment. Most people in my constituency who contract any form of cancer travel across Liverpool, normally to Clatterbridge on the Wirral, generally without too much complaint, to get the treatment they want. The same group of constituents has been extremely angry and provoked by the need to travel 11 miles down the road for A and E assessment and triage.