Damn. Damn, damn, damn.<\/p>\n
It turns out that the version of the Medical Innovation Bill about which I wrote this morning<\/a><\/span><\/span> isn’t the most recent: the most recent version is available here<\/a><\/span><\/span>. \u00a0Na\u00efvely, I’d assumed that the government would make sure the latest version was the easiest to find. \u00a0Silly me.<\/p>\n Here’s the updated version of\u00a0\u00a71(3): it says that the process of deciding whether to use an unorthodox treatment<\/p>\n must include\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0<\/span>consultation with appropriately qualified colleagues, including any relevant multi-disciplinary team;<\/span><\/p>\n (b)\u00a0<\/span>notification in advance to the doctor\u2019s responsible officer;<\/span><\/p>\n (c)\u00a0<\/span>consideration of any opinions or requests expressed by or on behalf of the patient;<\/span><\/p>\n (d)\u00a0<\/span>obtaining any consents required by law; and<\/span><\/p>\n (e) <\/span>consideration of all matters that appear to the doctor to be reasonably necessary to be considered in order to reach a clinical judgment, including assessment and comparison of the actual or probable risks and consequences of different treatments.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So it is a bit better – it seems to take out the explicit “ask your mates” line.<\/p>\n However, it still doesn’t say how medics ought to weigh these criteria, or what counts as an appropriately qualified colleague. \u00a0So, on the face of it, our homeopath-oncologist could go to a “qualified” homeopath. \u00a0Or he could go to an oncologist, get told he’s a nutter, make a mental note of that, and decide that that’s quite enough consultation and that he’s still happy to try homeopathy anyway.<\/p>\n So it’s still a crappy piece of legislation. \u00a0And it still enjoys government support. \u00a0Which does, I suppose, give me an excuse to post this:<\/p>\n\n