This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/london/6904342.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Cancer drug refusal was 'illegal' Cancer victim wins drugs ruling
(about 3 hours later)
A health authority's refusal to fund drugs for a bowel cancer victim was unlawful, the High Court has heard. A bowel cancer victim has won a High Court ruling forcing a local health authority to pay for her drugs.
Lawyers for Victoria Otley argued the drug Avastin had been effective when she spent £15,000 on private treatment. Mr Justice Mitting said the decision by Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust not to pay for Avastin for Victoria Otley was "flawed and irrational".
Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust failed in its legal duty when it refused to pay for the drug when Mrs Oatley's money ran out, a judge heard. Lawyers for Miss Otley, 57, argued the drug had been partially effective when she spent £15,000 on private treatment.
The east London trust has argued the drug was not cost-effective and efficacy was poor. The trust, who said the drug was not cost-effective and efficacy was poor, must now pay for five treatments.
Mrs Otley, 56, a mother of two and grandmother of three, from Dagenham, east London, has been told without treatment her life expectancy is three to six months. Important chances
Immediate risk The judge said that NHS panel considering the case had only concentrated on Miss Otley's short-term prospects.
He said the panel had failed adequately to take into account her "slim but important" chances of surviving more than a few months if she received the drug.
Miss Otley, a mother of two and grandmother of three, from Dagenham, east London, had been told without treatment her life expectancy is three to six months.
She was diagnosed with cancer in November 2005 - two and a half years after she first consulted doctors about her symptoms.She was diagnosed with cancer in November 2005 - two and a half years after she first consulted doctors about her symptoms.
Her father had died from the same disease.Her father had died from the same disease.
Her counsel John Howell QC told the judge that under the European Convention on Human Rights, a state was under a positive obligation, when there was a "known and real and immediate risk to life", to give life-sustaining treatment so long as it did not impose a disproportionate burden on the authorities. Money ran out
The judge said such decisions were necessarily medical and administrative matters, otherwise "you will have a judge-managed health service". Miss Otley raised £15,000 to fund supplies of Avastin and other drugs and her condition improved.
But Mr Howell replied that, if a decision was shown to be unfair and procedurally unlawful, patients such as Mrs Otley must be able to challenge it in the courts. But when her money ran out the trust refused to fund her treatment, which costs about £1,200 per cycle, claiming it was not cost effective and that evidence of its efficacy was poor.
In her case, the NHS Trust's Difficult Decisions Panel had failed to give fully articulated reasons for its ruling, depriving Mrs Otley of her "legitimate expectation" that such reasons would be given. The trust had argued that the allocation of resources was an important factor because although only £5,000 may be required in Miss Otley's case, many other patients might claim the right to the same treatment.
The case continues. After Wednesday's ruling it was decided that the trust will pay for five cycles of the drug then review her condition.