Lord Saatchi's Medical Innovation Bill: a response to some criticisms

Lord Saatchi's Medical Innovation Bill: a response to some criticisms

I support Lord Saatchi's Medical Innovation bill. Why?

On my first reading of the first draft, I was unsure, but after further analysis and hearing the arguments made by Lord Saatchi on the recent google hangout -https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c80kqapi0048lilguoc1idq0934 
- I am persuaded that this will be a useful measure (although there needs to be some re-drafting, which the bill team recognize and is part and parcel of the consultation process). The bill team are genuinely engaging with criticisms and concerns, but some of the criticism and comments are unfair and I would like to address these.

#1: It's a Tory bill.

No, this bill has been proposed by Lord Saatchi on the basis of his convictions rather than party politics. He wishes to see medical innovation facilitated following the sad passing of his wife Josephine from ovarian cancer, a condition for which current treatment is found wanting. 

#2: It's a quack's charter.

There is a need to tighten up certain parts of the draft, but the emphasis of the bill is on appropriate innovation. It is not a free pass for reckless experimentation. It will require the innovator to be a registered medical practitioner, consult with the multi-disciplinary team, act in the patient's best interest and for the treatment to be plausibly effective.

#3: There's no need for the bill as current medical negligence law permits innovation.

The proposal of the bill is in response to clinicians' perception of the legal risks of innovation. These partly relate to the current standards for medical negligence. The Bolam-Bolitho test for clinical negligence will remain unchanged however - this bill simply provides an exception in strictly defined circumstances.

#4: There's no need for the bill as doctors are not commonly sued for providing innovative treatment (as stated by the MDU). 

The lack of law suits does not prove that the threat of litigation does not impede innovation. Part of the bill's aim is to give doctors the confidence to innovate by providing a clear legal framework.

#5: Patients need protection. 

The bill does not reduce the protection for patients; it simply empowers patients and their doctors to explore innovative treatment where there are no options otherwise. It permits patients to exercise their autonomy in a paternalistic research governance regime.

#6. The bill's badly written.

The bill is at the draft stage, so improvements can and will be made.

The bill will probably go through several drafts. The bill team welcome the input of professionals and the public to ensure that the bill achieves its aims and wins the support of the stakeholders. The consultation page is here: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/medical-innovation-proposals-to-make-clinical-negligence-law-clearer