Yet another international study has shown how bad is the record of the NHS in treating cancer. This, in turn, can probably be treated as a proxy for the performance of the NHS in all diseases. Further evidence that by mistakenly opting for the NHS model - the most statist in the advanced world - Britain has suffered tens of thousands of unnecessary, premature deaths.
The point from this latest report which will really gall those for whom the NHS is a religion rather than a means to give the best possible healthcare to the greatest possible number is that the United States, of all countries, comes out either as the best or one of the best. This point was not, of course, highlighted in either the BBC or Guardian reports. How can it be that the USA, which is treated by these two organisations as if it were near criminal in its treatment of the ill, have got a far better overall record than supposedly loving, kind Britain?
I certainly do not hold up the USA as a model healthcare system. It is deeply flawed. But it is still much better at saving the lives of the greatest possible number than our, far more deeply flawed system. It depends what you want: a flawed system that saves more lives or a disastrous system that people feel is virtuous. This is a secular version of creationism. Many people in Britain love the NHS. They don't care about evidence. They don't care how many die. Believing in the NHS makes them feel good about themselves. I find it appalling that people are so self-indulgent and so uncaring about the reality.
Of course the government has claimed that the British performance has improved since the years which the study reflects. This is true. But so has the performance of the rest of the world. There is plenty of reason to think (use the search facility and find entries with the word 'Sikora') that Britain still has performance decidedly below the average in Europe, let alone that of the best in Europe or of the United States.
Here is an excerpt from the BBC report:
The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%..Japan came out best for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fared best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%
The full BBC report is here.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in NHS
Comments (1)
TrackBack (0)
Comments
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2008/07/yet_another_int.php on line 292
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2008/07/yet_another_int.php on line 292
While I have no particular disagreement with the general thrust of your arguement, the quote on prostate 5 year mortality may be misleading.
Prostate cancer can be a chronic disease, and in America the de facto screening programme will give rise to a significant lead time bias.
Though in America the surgical treatment of prostate cancer is undoubtedly excellent, particularly in the tertiary centres, there is the risk of over-treatment.
Posted by: George Delves at August 21, 2008 03:43 PM