❤️ Rare Cancers Bill
Commons Chamber
Dr Scott Arthur introduced the Rare Cancers Bill, highlighting the collective impact of rare cancers which make up nearly half of all UK cancer diagnoses. He shared personal stories, including that of a young girl named Tilly who lost her battle with neuroblastoma, to emphasize the urgent need for improved research and treatment options. MPs from various parties supported the Bill, sharing their own experiences and calling for action to address the disparities in cancer research and treatment. The Bill aims to increase research funding, enhance access to clinical trials, and review regulations to better incentivize pharmaceutical investment in rare cancer treatments.
Summary
-
Dr. Scott Arthur introduced the Rare Cancers Bill, emphasizing the collective impact of rare cancers, which account for 47% of all cancer diagnoses in the UK (180,000 cases annually).
-
Tilly’s story was shared to illustrate the challenges faced by families dealing with rare cancers like neuroblastoma. Despite treatment, Tilly passed away at age four, highlighting the urgent need for faster development of treatments.
- **The Bill aims to improve survival rates for rare cancer patients by addressing three main injustices:
- Beating a rare cancer should be as likely as beating common cancers.
- Patients with rare cancers should have equal access to medical breakthroughs and clinical trials.
- Diagnosis of rare cancers should not be delayed compared to other cancers.**
-
Kira’s story was mentioned to show how repurposing existing drugs could benefit rare cancer patients. Despite her struggles with neuroblastoma, Kira has benefited from a lung cancer drug not typically used for her condition.
- **The Bill proposes four key measures:
- Appointing a national specialty lead for rare cancers to facilitate research.
- Creating a single registry for rare cancer trials.
- Establishing a single database of rare cancer patients available for trials.
- Reviewing orphan drug regulations to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to invest in rare cancer research.**
-
Members of Parliament shared personal stories of loved ones affected by rare cancers, highlighting the emotional and societal impact of these diseases.
-
Support for the Bill comes from numerous organizations, including Blood Cancer UK, Pancreatic Cancer UK, and The Brain Tumour Charity, among others.
-
The Bill’s passage through Parliament is seen as a crucial step toward giving hope and potentially more time to those diagnosed with rare cancers.
-
The Minister of Health and Social Care expressed support for the Bill, emphasizing its alignment with government efforts to improve cancer care through clinical research and streamlined trial processes.
- The debate concluded with a unanimous agreement to move forward with the Bill, aiming to address the challenges and injustices faced by those with rare cancers.
Divisiveness
The session displays very little disagreement among the participants. The primary focus of the debate was on the introduction and second reading of the Rare Cancers Bill, with an emphasis on the challenges posed by rare cancers and the urgent need for more research and improved treatments. There was overwhelming support for the Bill across different speakers, with multiple Members of Parliament sharing personal stories and expressing their support for the measures proposed in the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Edward Argar, explicitly confirmed support for the Bill’s passage, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Ashley Dalton, also pledged government support for the Bill, highlighting its alignment with broader healthcare reforms and cancer plans.
No significant objections, criticisms, or counterarguments were raised against the Bill during the session. The consensus among participants was clear and supportive, with repeated calls for action and change in the treatment and research of rare cancers. The Bill was unanimously agreed to for its Second Reading and commitment to a Public Bill Committee.
Given the near-unanimous support and lack of substantial disagreement, the session is rated a 1 out of 5 for disagreement.