// Mote Prime - Article

Mote Prime

A personal website

















Mote Prime


Other Sites

OfQuack Podcasts


Little Book of Clam


Stop the Saatchi Bill

free debate


Mote Prime > Politics

Saatchi Bill Consultation Response

The Medical Innovation Bill, otherwise known as the Saatchi Bill after its proposer, is a bill which seeks to introduce more freedom for doctors to innovate. Important advance, or Quacks' Charter?

The public consultation for the bill ended on 25 April 2014. Here is my response, in case the responses don't get published.

Response form

Name: Sean Ellis

Address: [Redacted]

Email: [Redacted]

Phone number: [Redacted]

Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? Individual

If as an individual, are you responding as: A patient (NHS user)

If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please give the name of the organisation and say who it represents: N/A

The questions posed in the consultation paper are as follows:

Question 1: Do you have experience or evidence to suggest that the possibility of litigation sometimes deters doctors from innovation?


Question 2: Do you have experience or evidence to suggest that there is currently a lack of clarity and certainty about the circumstances in which a doctor can safely innovate without fear of litigation?


Question 3: Do you agree with the circumstances in which the Bill applies, as outlined in clause 1(3)? If not, please identify any changes you suggest, and give your reasons for them.

 The circumstances appear to be counterproductive. There are usually good
 reasons why particular treatments do not gain support from health
 professionals, and this bill seems to explicitly designed to allow discredited
 or fringe treatments to be used.

Question 4: Do you have any comments on the matters listed in clause 1(4)-(5) on which the doctor’s decision must be based for it to be responsible? Are there any that should be removed, or changed, or added, and if so why? For example, should the Bill explicitly indicate that the other treatments mentioned in 1(5) (a)-(c) include treatments offered as part of research studies?

 Where treatments are part of a research study, then the study must be
 registered in advance, including protocol, outcome measures, and timescale
 for publication. I would suggest following the guidelines laid down by the
 AllTrials initiative.
 In fact, I think that this should be the only circumstance in which unproven
 treatments should be available to the public. If a new, unproven treatment is
 given to a patient without then making the data about the patient's response
 and reactions available for study, then this does not serve to advance the
 state of medical knowledge.
 The reliance on the professional opinion and assessment of a single physician
 is a worrying point of failure. Single physicians can have opinions which range
 from fancy to fringe to fraud. The wording of the bill seems to offer no
 distinction between them. This seems to me to open a large loophole in the
 necessary process of clinical regulation.
 As examples, the cases of Errol Denton in the UK, Stanislaw Burzynski in the
 USA, and Gloria Thomas in Australia are instructive as the the kind of adverse
 outcomes that can occur when a single physician is in charge of all aspects of
 patient selection, monitoring, and reporting when using unproven (or disproven)
 I can see no wording in the bill to prevent this kind of abuse from occurring.

Question 5: Do you have any comments on the process set out in clause 1(6)-(7)? Are there any provisions that should be removed, changed or added – and if so, why?

 The provisions here seem very woolly. Too much is left to opinion, and too much
 seems optional. For example, the wording does not make it clear whether cross-
 disciplinary consultation is a requirement, or a request. This appears to leave
 considerable leeway to skip important consultations and still comply with the
 letter of the bill.

Question 6: If the draft Bill becomes law, do you have any views on the best way to communicate its existence to doctors?

 In its current form, if the bill became law I would urge that its existence be
 communicated to patients, rather than doctors, so that they can protect
 themselves from its consequences.

Question 7: To reinforce the Bill, are there other things that need to happen to encourage responsible innovation?

 This bill is not required. Innovation should be encouraged within a framework
 of fully-disclosed and properly regulated clinical trials.

Question 8: Do you have any comments and suggestions for inclusion in the draft impact assessment and equality analysis?

 The impact assessment should include an assessment of:
 Use of the law by unscrupulous doctors to cover themselves when offering
 dubious or fraudulent services. I think it would be instructive to arrange a
 role-play session, where one group make up a clearly fraudulent treatment (I
 favour “percussive cranial ligno-therapy”) and use this legislation to defend
 their practice against another group attempting a mock prosecution. What is the
 Unreported negative outcomes and positive reporting bias as a result of not
 having to register treatments in advance will lead to a skewed view of the
 effectiveness of any particular treatment.

Question 9: Overall, should the draft Bill become law?

 The bill as it stands opens a huge loophole in the system of clinical
 regulation, seriously undermining the provision of safe and effective treatment
 on the NHS, and therefore the confidence of the public in their health
 The amount of change required to make the bill a workable piece of legislation
 would be equivalent to starting again.
 In my view, a replacement bill should be introduced in which innovation is
 encouraged within a framework of fully-disclosed and properly regulated
 clinical trials.

We also welcome any other comments you wish to make.