One of the final items on this morning's Today was a discussion of Lord Saatchi's Medical Innovations Bill, which will be presented in the House of Lords this Thursday.
If passed the bill would allow doctors to experiment with innovative new techniques or drugs on dying patients without the fear of prosecution. It would only happen when all else has failed and when the patients are nearing the end of their life.
If you want to read the case for the bill then there's a piece by Dominic Nutt, the director of communications for the Medical Innovation Bill, in the Telegraph.
That paper also reports that the results of a public consultation have revealed overwhelming public and professional support for the bill.
In fact, were in not for the deeply hostile comments below the line at the Telegraph, you might assume from that paper's reporting that hardly anyone other than public liability lawyers oppose it.
That doesn't appear to be true though.
If you Google around, you find that there are quite a lot of people opposed to this bill, not just public liability lawyers, and if you want to read the case against the bill then there's a piece by NHS manager David Hills in the Guardian which puts the other side of the argument.
[Correction: David Hills is now an IT manager, having left the NHS some years ago].
If you Google around, you find that there are quite a lot of people opposed to this bill, not just public liability lawyers, and if you want to read the case against the bill then there's a piece by NHS manager David Hills in the Guardian which puts the other side of the argument.
[Correction: David Hills is now an IT manager, having left the NHS some years ago].
Mr Hills also argues against the claims made by the bill's supporters about the level of support there is for its enactment:
The Saatchi bill, driven by a slick social media campaign and its own Twitter account, has been touted as the means by which we will find a cure for cancer, as well other currently incurable diseases. It is claimed to have wide support across the medical profession and patient groups. Unfortunately, evidence shows otherwise, and the pro-Saatchi campaign has been marred by frequent and repeated accusations regarding lack of openness or honesty, either about the campaign and its support, or the real effect this bill would have if passed into law.
I only know all this because I've been checking the story out ever since Evan Davis interviewed a supporter of the Medical Innovations Bill at around 8.52 am.
The supporter on Today, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, made the case in favour of the bill so plausibly that I wanted to hear the other side to see what their counter-argument could possibly be to it, and then - having heard both sides - make up my own mind. That opportunity was not granted by Today.
Plus - and this is what really drove me to check it out further - I was taken aback by Evan Davis' complete lack of impartiality during the discussion.
Most of his questions were put from a standpoint that strongly supported the bill (and, if anything, went even further in support of such experimentation than the bill itself), thus reinforcing his guest's argument - which isn't how it should be at all - ...
Most of his questions were put from a standpoint that strongly supported the bill (and, if anything, went even further in support of such experimentation than the bill itself), thus reinforcing his guest's argument - which isn't how it should be at all - ...
It surely is the case that we would learn things that would be useful to other patients and people, you know, when their life has all but been taken from them by unfortunate disease, might feel that that is part of why they would like to have experimental treatment?...and then, even worse, Evan asked about Sir Michael about the opponents of the bill in an incredulous tone - a tone that implied that no one in their right mind could oppose such a sane and sensible measure:
Tell me this. Why is it so controversial? Because you're looking after the patient, you're having a go with things that might help them. Just what is the reason [laughing] why people don't...What are the reservations?That's not something I'm imagining, by the way. That tone was definitely there, and it's completely inappropriate from an 'impartial' broadcaster. And the question itself was so loaded against those opponents' point of view as to be a mockery of an 'impartial' question. Unsurprisingly, Sir Michael was very dismissive of their concerns.
In the full-throated way of Twitter, someone posted this immediately after the interview, and it's hard to disagree with:
Jesus jeffing christ, just heard the #saatchibill propaganda piece on @BBCr4today Complaint on the way. Power and money talk in BBC it seems
— FW (@frozenwarning) June 2, 2014
