- L Sam Lewis, general practitioner
- 1Surgery, Newport, Pembrokeshire SA42 0TJ
- sam{at}garthnewydd.freeserve.co.uk
I suppose it is inevitable that the moral and political issue of copayment for cancer drugs will result in an arbitrary, bureaucratic directive, such as that offered by the unelected Lords Finlay and Crisp,1 whose rules I summarise:
(1) The drug or device is listed as one for which copayment is allowed.
(2) The patient should want the treatment (and have discussed the risks, etc).
(3) The clinician should have a reasonable belief that benefits outweigh the benefits of other treatment. …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27