Elderly to be denied new drug treatments

I'm not sure what either of you means by 'rounds of chemo'. Do you mean a courses of treatment, or a single treatment?

I keep reading on GN about how much life expectation we over 70s have, 20 years, 25 years.
Its ridiculous. I am 75 and don't expect these number of years. I live for the day. The quality of life declines with age and it is reasonable that life saving drugs should be invested on the young in society. How much NI did we pay? not enough to pay for health treatment these days.
As for the 7 rounds of chemo. My friend is a GP and she says if one round hasn't heLped then a perhaps a second but its better to leave it then and not ruin the health that one still has.
Face up to the fact that life is not forever! It improves the quality of life no end.

FlicketyB A good point. In my view no!

I would suggest for discussion that if someone who's liver damage is due to alcoholism fails to stop drinking they should not be given any priority for a liver transplant .

It is possible to test if someone is using alcohol and how long it might be since they stopped.

Is it right to spend vast sums of money and precious rare resources on someone who has persistently failed to end the behaviour that has caused the health crisis.

This is not just retributive. To continue drinking is such a strong contraindication to a liver transplant ever succeeding that this restriction has to be considered or the precious donated liver would be wasted.

I have a friend, aged 70, who is high on an liver transplant list. They otherwise have no health problems and come from a long-lived family. They could have 10 or 20 years of useful and enjoyable life ahead of them. Their liver damage is not alcohol related. Should a younger person, even with a family, whose liver disease is the result of heavy drinking, the George Best scenario, automatically get preference?

Had to look that one up nellie.
This is from Wikipedia :

Ranibizumab (trade name Lucentis) is a monoclonal antibody fragment (Fab) derived from the same parent mouse antibody as bevacizumab (Avastin). It is much smaller than the parent molecule and has been affinity matured to provide stronger binding to VEGF-A. It is an anti-angiogenic that has been approved to treat the "wet" type of age-related macular degeneration (AMD, also ARMD), a common form of age-related vision loss.

MiL lives about a mile from Addenbrookes and she knows she's very fortunate. I think especially in the early days, there was a bit if a postcode lottery, but that's inevitable when new treatments are being introduced.

Good point JaneA is the lucentis one of these cell replacement treatments?

Firstly, it's not NICE who have instigated this, it's the Department of Health.
Secondly, it depends how you interpret 'wider societal benefits'.
I don't think it should be taken to mean that the old person is contributing economically to society by being in paid employment, or looking after grandchildren, or caring for a spouse or partner.
I think it's a wider interpretation than that.
I think it means that the question is whether longterm there is less cost to society by providing the treatment than not providing it.
My MiL is a good example. She has wet macular degeneration but has have several lucentis injections which have not only saved her sight, but have meant that she can continue at 92 to live independently.
Although the lucentis is very expensive, it costs a lot less than providing social care would.

JessM, I'm with you all the way.

My MIL's sister (80) recently had 7 rounds of chemotherapy and then died. She had a long list of other health problems and recently lost her husband. Are we seriously suggesting that after the failure of a round or two of chemo she should have been given he latest experimental anti-cancer drug at huge cost and with the possibility of extending her life just a few miserable months?
If, on the other hand if a young mum who was otherwise fit was in the same position re a cancer I would be happy that she should have the chance a few more months with her family.

And what about all we have contributed to the country, economically, socially, financially (50 plus year's of paying taxes and still paying)? Doesthat count for nothing?

JessM, thanks for the link, I agree that the principle is not unreasonable. Like others on here, my own experience, and that of close friends and family simply doesn't suggest that older people are being denied appropriate treatment.

Apologies - I thought I had included the link last night. It wasn't the DM for a change.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/new-nhs-drugs-policy-could-see-elderly-denied-treatment-9050297.html

Health stories in the press are often distorted and alarmist - specially designed to put up the blood pressure.
I think this principle is not unreasonable at all:
"it's about your capacity to benefit from the treatments that we're looking at." as it says in the link.
If someone is very old and has multiple health problems and very poor quality of life do we really think that doctors should feel obliged (as they currently do) to give them the very latest (and usually therefore very expensive) treatment Even if it will only at best buy them six more months of pain and suffering?

www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/features/WillElderlyPatientsMissOutOnNewDrugs.jsp

Well I can only speak for my own family and can honestly say that I have seen no evidence whatsoever of either my mum or my grandma being denied any kind of drug/operation/procedure on age grounds. My mum has taken numerous (cancer) drugs over the years, some of which I know are extremely expensive. Likewise my grandma always gets the very best of care from both her GP and the various hospitals she attends where she is treat like some kind of superstar and revels in the attention her advancing age gives her.

What is classed officially as "elderly?"

Thought it might be scare-mongering.

I googled and 3 lots of DM reports came up, one is from 1 day ago, but they seem to recycle their scare-mongering on an annual basis, I've done a cut and paste below:

NHS denies the elderly life-saving treatment for cancer: Postcode ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../NHS-denies-elderly-life-saving-treatment-cancer-P...
1 Sep 2013 - The elderly are being denied life-saving operations in a postcode lottery ..... of African wildlife, spa treatment rooms - and yours for £15k a night!
Sentenced to death for being old: The NHS denies life-saving ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-savin...‎
6 Apr 2012 - The charity estimates that if the treatment of older patients matched that on offer in the U.S., as many as 14,000 lives could be saved every year. ..... Karren Brady, 44, pictured in London last night, says going back to work ...
Elderly may be denied life-saving medicine under plans to change ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Elderly-denied-life-saving-medicine-plans-change-...
1 day ago - 'In making recommendations about which treatments to recommend for use in the NHS, Nice does not and will not make decisions based on ...

There might be concerns about how elderly and which drugs. [trying to give the benefit of the doubt without jumping in with both feet icon]

Have you got a link to this Anno?