Stop the Saatchi Bill

Driven by an extraordinary two-year PR campaign on social media and a supportive newspaper partner, this all started as Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill, metamorphosed through several versions, and was resurrected under a new name by Chris Heaton-Harris, before finally clearing its last hurdle in the Lords this week to become the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Act. Pretty much the only thing they share is the word 'Innovation' in the title.

One day, it may be possible for politicians to ask the people who actually work in the medical field: what are the problems you face, and how can we help you overcome them?

One day, politicians may actually listen to the answers they receive, and thus try to tackle genuine problems rather than imagined ones.

One day, politicians, medics, researchers, lawyers, patient groups, charities, and the public, may work together to overcome the barriers to the development and provision of new treatments.

But it is not this day.

Read more: Not this day

Uncategorized

Under The Bus

I hadn’t expected to be returning so soon to the subject of the Saatchi Bill consultation. But after I wrote my post criticising how their actions had undermined that consultation, the Saatchi bill team have responded. Yes indeed, and what a response it is. I’m going to assume you’re familiar with the bill, and with the arguments in my previous post…

Muddy Waters

I salute the PR industry for finding new and elaborate ways to muddy the waters. (Ben Goldacre — Guardian, 20 November 2010) When Ben Goldacre wrote those words, he was talking about the use (or misuse) of PR to guide people into answering survey questions the way the PR company wanted them answered instead of how they would naturally be answered.…

Report Stage Roundup

The Report Stage of the Medical Innovation Bill took place on Friday 12 December. (Go to Parliament TV for other viewing options.) The full transcript can be read here. I will highlight just a few extracts. Lord Winston: I am disappointed that we are not defining “innovation”. That is important, because, clearly, these are issues which doctors will need to consider.…