Promises, promises - easy to make but hard to deliver

It would be most improper for the newsletter of a charity such as Prostate Research Campaign UK to take political sides.  Nevertheless, all patients in the UK are affected by what facilities are provided under the NHS.  As we approach the next general election the Government's health record may be perceived and presented in a promising light.  'Much has been achieved', a politician might say.  In the realm of the prostate, however, we are, unfortunately still in the era of promises rather than delivery.

We have been promised that all urgent urological cancer patients will see a consultant within two weeks, a new standard set to be achieved from last December.  We expect, as part of a general improvement in service levels at the consultant level, for integrated teams to be set up in hospitals.  We have been led to believe that the new money which is in the process of being spent will become visible as more of the best equipment, more staff and more research.

In the euphoria of hearing of significantly increased health spending and new targets, one should not lose sight of the fact that very little has yet reached the patient.  Where is this new equipment?  Where are the integrated urological teams in hospitals? When can we hope to see the much needed increases in staff in this desperately under resourced area?

Let us hope that whoever is elected in the next general election, our political leaders will focus upon delivery of what is already being anticipated rather than upon 'spin' and promises.

But even that will not be enough for long suffering prostate patients as the letter reprinted alongside illustrates.

Even if all the Department of Health's present targets are met, the quality of treatment received may still fall a long way short of what we should like to see as the norm.

The letter following from Charles Dutton of Bridport, was first published in The Daily Telegraph.  The tone of the letter is bitter. The treatment received (or lack of it) makes that wholly understandable.  And yet, had the date when Mr Dutton was seen by the consultant been just six days earlier, the DoH would have been able to record that his treatment had been up to the current best practice standards.  For today the only measure of the quality of care is the time between a GP referring a patient and his being seen by a consultant.

So now when we write to our MPs we should be asking for their support for two things.  First of all, delivery on existing promises and, secondly, some further work to be carried out urgently to set, and find ways of implementing, new standards to greatly reduce the time which elapses between seeing a consultant and treatment beginning.

Dangerous Waiting

Sir - I am amazed at the naivité of your recent correspondent who was surprised that the Government allocated £1 million to research into prostate cancer but £47 million to the Dome.

Prostate cancer is a most convenient way of culling male old age pensioners.  Eugenics always seemed to be an important part of the socialist agenda.  Pensioners not only do not contribute to the state's economy but are also a positive drain upon it.

I am 69 and first went to my GP complaining of the symptoms of the disease on Jan 25 2000.  I had a blood test on Jan 28 and the result (positive) on Feb 9.

The consultation with the surgeon was on Feb 29, the biopsy on May 31.  The consultation with the GP was on June 5 when I was told the biopsy was positive.

Then there was the MRI scan July19 and the bone scan July 28 before the consultation with the specialist on Sept 6 which showed that the cancer had spread.

I still await radiotherapy.

Charles Dutton of Bridport, Dorset. (Daily Telegraph September 23 2000)