Letter: Viagra rationed
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Doctors have been part of an implicit rationing process since the NHS began, and the British Medical Association has been eager to involve the public and the Government in a debate about explicit rationing for years. What we have never done - as your leading article of 23 January misleadingly alleges - is to supply drugs "to everyone who thinks they may need" them. As you rightly suppose, this would bankrupt the NHS.
The main premise of your attack on the BMA for encouraging the prescription of Viagra on the NHS is that we are "selfish and irresponsible" trade unionists whom you compare to "the worst of the flying pickets". On the contrary, family doctors have had to be very careful about all their costs, as they are well aware of the financial limitations of the NHS. Regulations compel us to prescribe any drug which is licensed, has not been restricted by "blacklisting" or "greylisting", and which in our clinical opinion the patient needs. To call that "gesture politics" is ludicrous. We are not there to pander to patients' wants, or to provide recreational drugs. We have to relieve suffering and distress, whether life-threatening and painful or not. In this regard, impotence is no different from any other illness.
Frank Dobson has been brave in taking personal responsibility for rationing, and we welcome this. Unfortunately, he has chosen to do so arbitrarily by producing a list of "worthy" causes of impotence. The excluded patients, such as those whose impotence is associated with heart, lung, liver or kidney disease, will be forced to buy Viagra privately. There is no evidence behind these distinctions. What makes an impotent diabetic "better" than an impotent man with kidney failure?
The guidelines do not allow discretion. They are cruel and arbitrary. Mr Dobson implies that the NHS is primarily intended for patients with life-threatening or painful conditions. What about the blind, the deaf and those with skin disease? Clearly, the public and the Government must now, at last, become involved in a lengthy and thoughtful debate about whether the NHS should have more resources or needs to ration services more explicitly. Although we would favour the former, the reality is that the latter is the only credible solution. The debate must include a rational consideration of need, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and social values - matters virtually ignored in Mr Dobson's proposals.
Dr JOHN CHISHOLM
Chairman
General Practitioners Committee
British Medical Association
London WC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments