King Charles receives cancer care ‘fit for a King’ - but what about the rest of us?
Image courtesy of Wikimedia user: Philafrenzy
Earlier this week, Buckingham Palace announced that King Charles had been diagnosed with cancer. Well-wishers from across the globe jumped to offer their support for a speedy recovery - including even the anti-royalist group Republic.
As much as the vast majority of Britons wish King Charles the quickest recovery possible, and therefore the best treatment, his diagnosis has reminded us all of cancer’s devastating effects.
In the 24 hours following Buckingham Palace’s announcement, visits to NHS England’s advice page on cancer jumped by 51%. Many hope that the King’s diagnosis will raise cancer awareness, leading to more diagnoses. But would the NHS have the capacity to handle a potential spike in cancer diagnoses? The answer is simple: probably not.
Recent figures reveal that only 65.2% of patients start treatment within 62 days of an urgent suspected cancer referral. The target is 85%. 1 in 10 had to wait over 104 days to start treatment.By contrast, King Charles began treatment within days of being diagnosed.
Very few Britons believe that the King, who has dedicated his life to public service, deserves anything but the very best cancer treatment possible. But, for the majority of citizens who can’t afford to spend thousands of pounds on fast-tracked private healthcare, the odds look more grim. NHS waiting lists are commonly described as a ‘postcode lottery’ - a phrase so prevalent we can dissociate it from its implications. Relying on NHS treatment is, in essence, gambling on the speed and quality of treatment available in your area.
1 in 2 of us will develop some form of cancer within our lifetimes. All of us will stand alongside a loved one as they go through cancer treatment. 104 days is a long time for a patient to know that cancerous cells are growing and multiplying in their body, with little they’re able to do other than wait. The results are, of course, potentially deadly.
The NHS’s current failings contradict its original values. Aneurin Bevan, one of its founders, famously said that “no society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied care because of a lack of means”.
Whilst, as of yet, care is free at the point of need, this care is becoming second-class to the point of being a significantly more risky and dangerous option. A recent analysis from Cancer Research showed that, last year, over 20000 deaths were ‘avoidable’.
A two-tier healthcare system seems to go against the basic principles of equality, which is defined as one of the 4 ‘British values’. Politicians and citizens remain committed to equality and preventing discrimination on the basis of factors such as race or gender.
While it is vital to prevent these forms of discrimination, healthcare inequality is a widely overlooked violation of the principles of equality. If ensuring that people of all races, genders and sexualities enjoy the same rights and quality of life is important, how much more important could it be that we are all also able to receive life-saving care at the time that we need it - not 104 days later?
This week, Rishi Sunak expressed that he was thankful that the King’s cancer had been ‘caught early’, hoping he ‘gets the treatment that he needs and makes a full recovery’. The estimated 3 million British citizens currently living with cancer will surely be hoping that Sunak wishes they also get the treatment that they need - and directs more resources to the NHS so they can also receive quality care.