From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6956959.stm

 

 

Scots 'worst' for cancer survival

 

Survival rates for Scottish women were the lowest in Europe

Cancer survival rates for people in Scotland are among the worst in Europe, according to new research.

The percentage of Scottish women surviving the disease for more than five years was the lowest in Europe, despite massive investment programmes.

 

The study, published in the Lancet Oncology, charted patients diagnosed in 21 countries who survived cancer for more than five years.

 

In Scotland, less than half of women were alive five years after diagnosis.

 

With only 48% of women surviving, Scotland sits at the bottom of the league table, despite having three-times the health budget of places like Poland and the Czech Republic.

 

This compares with 52.7% in England and 51.9% in Ireland.

 

Common cancers

 

Survival rates for Scottish men were also in the bottom four of the league table, with only 40.2% living more than five years after diagnosis.

 

The authors of the report said that survival rates for cancer were highest in northern Europe, although they were improving in eastern Europe.

 

The report also revealed that Scottish survival rates for different types of cancer were among the lowest in Europe.

 

For kidney cancer, the survival rate was 45.9%, the lowest of the 21 countries, while the 71% survival figure for prostate cancer was among the lowest.

 

The number of women alive five years after breast cancer diagnosis was 77.3%, similar to England at 77.8%.

 

In Scotland, 16.6% of people survived stomach cancer for five years, similar to England but almost half the figure in Italy, where 33.2% of patients live on.

 

One of the authors of the report, Prof Ian Kunkler, consultant in clinical oncology at the Western General in Edinburgh, warned against making direct comparisons with Scotland and eastern European countries.

 

He said: "One has to be very careful about the comparison with Eastern Europe as the amount of cancer registration data that we have from places like Poland and the Czech Republic is less than we have for the UK, where we have a virtually complete cancer registration."

 

The study compared five-year survival rates for eight common cancers.

 

It found that, overall, rates were improving and gaps between rich and poor countries were narrowing.

 

But although Scotland spends £1,500 per capita a year on healthcare, three-times more than Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, the results do not always reflect the outlay, according to the report.

 

Survival rates for Hodgkin's disease and lung cancer in Scotland were similar to those in eastern Europe.

 

The 28.5% of women surviving ovarian cancer was similar to England, where 29.3% survive, but behind France, which tops the table with 36.4% of patients alive five years after diagnosis.

 

Minister for public health Shona Robison said: "We are on track to meet the 2010 target of a 20% reduction in mortality rates from cancer in the under-75s.

 

"Figures show that since 1995 there has been an 18.1% drop in the overall rate of deaths from cancer in Scotland.

 

"There have been significant improvements in survival from cancer in Scotland.

 

"However, although significant improvements have been made in recent years, we are not complacent. We know there is still more to do to make sure Scots have the best possible chances of long-term survival following a cancer diagnosis."

 

 

:angry: :angry: :angry:

 

 

 

 

 

Are those findings not a terrible indictment on our health service?

 

Is it a simple matter of insufficient money being made available to the NHS? Are cancers not being diagnosed quickly enough? Are waiting times much longer in Britain? Are our facilities poorer? Are our doctors not as good?

 

What is it?????

 

A country that used to lead the world in medicine is reduced to this? :o

 

 

Thoughts please. :(

I don't think it's entirely down to lack of funds. Did anyone watch the TV programme that Gerry Robinsion (I think that's his name) made a while ago, probably last year. It was about trying to reduce waiting lists and there seemed to be just completely awful management and far too many highly paid people in executive and management positions whose wages eat up all the funds.

Doesn't Scotland also come out as one of the worst diets in Europe? There is more and more evidence to suggest a direct link with cancer and poor diet. Given the amount of money being pumped in, is it not possible that there is more to it than just the NHS going to hell in a handcart as the doom mongers would love us to believe?

It would be nice to see comparison for other things like time to treatment, type of treatment and results for other health care issues.

I don't think it's entirely down to lack of funds. .

 

well its not really as we are spending three times as much but for worse recovery rates.

 

im not sure what to say about this tbh... obviously its scandelous but i agree with ricky, what are other comparisons?

Part of it is certainly down to a poor diet, but I dont think Scots really have that much worse a diet than people in the North of England tbh..

 

It's true that more actual funds are being pumped into the NHS, but look at where much of this is going - management, bureaucracy, admin, things like that disastrous IT system that cost the NHS, and the taxpayer, over 2 billion pounds that never actually worked properly and had to be scrapped.. This Govt has frankly just not had the guts to reverse the "reforms" that the previous Tory adminsitration brought in and instead has decided to merely chuck money into an ever increasing black hole while not actually tackling the root problems at the heart of the system. They can say all they want about how they're "increasing funding by blah-blah whatever....", it means absolutely fukk all when the problems are the system itself and the way it's run, is rotten to the core... There have been several major reports in Private Eye over the past year or so which just nails the whole sorry, scandalous thing down, what is happening to OUR health service in this day and age is nothing short of disgusting... <_< We were indeed the envy of the world once, now frankly, third world countries like sodding CUBA appear to have a better healthcare programme than we do... :wacko:

 

The only way the NHS will improve is to scrap the Trust system as a whole and bring the whole thing back under State control (and that includes the catering and cleaning services as well..), sacking ALL these bloody managers, accountants and petty bureaucrats who are bleeding the service dry with their outrageous "consultancy fees", and letting the actual doctors and nurses run things again, like it used to be back in the day when it first came into being...

 

They're trying to run the NHS like a business, and it is NOT anything of the sort....

If it was mainly down to the NHS being $h!t (which it certainly is), why are there discrepancies between Scotland and England?

If it was mainly down to the NHS being $h!t (which it certainly is), why are there discrepancies between Scotland and England?

 

The "postcode lottery" mate, that's the simple answer, different NHS Trusts run things better or worse, there's absolutely no consistency... Depending on where you actually live, your waiting lists could be shorter or longer, you may get a treatment or a drug in one Trust that you wouldn't get in another... It's stupid and there really is practically no way of finding out other than by trial or error which Trust would give you the things you would need...

 

I read another article about this. It said people in the UK wait too long to be referred to a Specialist. Then after being diagnosed they wait far too long to start radiotherapy/chemotherapy.

 

Basically by the time UK cancer patients start their 'treatment', the cancer is in many cases too far advanced. Hence the higher death rate than in other EU countries. :cry:

apparently we are bottom of the european list for the recovery of heart attacks too...