Cdn. Cancer Update today on the new, not good for us Canucks.

snowyday

Cdn. Cancer Update today on the new, not good for us Canucks.

snowyday

Hi Ladies:  Caught a short clip about this on my news channel in London they gave it all of 30 seconds. But thought I'd try and find out more here is one story followed by the link to the other articles.  I think alot of us knew this already but I had no idea it was this ridiculous.pearl49  Has me wondering about our health care system. And reminds me of when I first wrote about the 5-FU study I was asked to join in early November, I'll try find the link to that if your curious, but at the time I was surprised that they asked me to take part in a study on 5-FU and toxicity in patients that may not have the enzymes to break it down. Well I looked up the infor I had and found out that it had already been studied in the US in 2004, now I was asked in 2007. Well let me know what you think and if your in the West your better off than the rest of us.pearl49Feb, 12 2008 - 11:50 AM
CALGARY/AM770CHQR - Chances of surviving cancer may be related to a person's postal code.
That's according to a lobby group's 10th report card on cancer in Canada.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada says access to diagnostic tools and best treatments for cancer vary depending on where you live in Canada.
According to the report, Albertans enjoy the best acess to PET scans, screening for 15 types of cancer, and 24 cancer indicators.
The report also says western provinces have the best access to publicly funded cancer drugs and lead the way in providing new cancer drugs to residents.
The report says Canada needs to re-think prevention research funding, refine the clinical trials system, enhance the role of nurses in support care, and make greater use of new technology in cancer diagnosis and treatment And here is a link to a new study out today from the Canadian Cancer Coalition.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMKzkOKNstm-gXCWDj_GugB1_JEw

Beesie

The report doesn't surprise me.  It's basically saying that because we have provincial health care rather than a national health system, there are differences in the availability and funding of treatment across the country.  That's a big issue, but it's not new and it relates to a lot more than cancer treatment - it's true of all medical care.  

I agree that we need a national cancer treatment program to ensure that Canadian breast cancer treatment standards (we do have national standards) are implemented equally across the country and so that everyone in the country has equal acess to government funded drugs.  But that wouldn't solve the entire problem.  Our postal code would still make a difference.  In Canada, and I suspect in every other any country, those who live in and around major markets have better access to specialists and specialized care. Smaller local hospitals don't have the same equipment as larger hospitals located in big cities.  The availability of specialized surgeons is better in larger cities; for example, there aren't many surgeons around who do DIEP and I'm sure that most of them work at major hospitals in large cities.  I've noticed in reading this board that many U.S.women (and some Canadians) end up going to New Orleans for their DIEP reconstruction, often because the technique isn't available locally.   As for the availability of government funding for cancer drugs, yes, this does differ by province and it certainly shouldn't.  The Canadian system is far from ideal, and equalization among the provinces would be a good thing, but overall I'd much rather have our system, flaws and all, than have to argue with an insurance company to get approval for an MRI or a specific type of treatment that my doctor recommends. 

As for being asked to participate in a research study that is similar to one that was done in the U.S. years earlier, that doesn't mean that the Canadian system is behind.  I'd guess that it has nothing to do with the Canadian health care system.  Scientific research is both local and global.  Many scientific breakthroughs start with a small study done locally by one university or hospital; after the results are published, if there is something worth pursuing, further studies will then be done at other locations around the world.  It could be that the Canadian study had new or different elements that were being tested based on the findings of the original U.S. study, or it could be that the Canadian study was identical to the original study but was part of a larger study to get more scientifically reliable results.  In any case, I know that a number of Canadian hospitals and universities are on the leading edge on cancer research, often being the location that does that first small study that leads to a promising finding and much more research around the world. 

snowyday

Here is the link to the report card.