Cancer and a lost opportunity

Wednesday November 23, 2005 17:38

by Kathy Sinnott

With a close friend battling cancer and another friend going in for a biopsy next week, I am even more acutely aware of the breathtaking inadequacy of our cancer treatment services than usual.

Prevention, where it is possible, is vital but the crisis in Irish cancer treatment makes me even more determined to promote anything that will help avoid the disease.

More than four years ago a decision was taken at EU level to deal with the chemical poisoning of people in European countries. Everyone who is aware of the enormity of the problem knew that chemicals must be classified according to degree of danger, then registered and controlled, and that this must be done urgently. So the EU decided to take a stand and curb our crazy, destructive romance with dangerous chemicals. The initative to get a handle on chemicals and establish safety standards on those that manufacture or import them or use them in production was named European Registration and Authorisation of Chemicals Directive, or REACH.

Selling REACH has been hard. Chemical companies and companies that use their products all predicted economic calamity if it was passed. And they wre right, the extra costs and restrictions of chemical usage could effect their competitiveness if only European companies were forced to comply. But this effect could have been neutralised if everything imported and sold in Europe was also required to comply with better chemical standards. This would have put the competition, at least in Europe, on an even playing field.

The initial intention of protecting health and environment seemed to get lost in the process as REACH went through multiple dilutions. After almost half a decade of research, debate, lobbying, and voting, REACH has morphed beyond recognition. As an MEP concerned about people's health and also concerned that families have jobs, I worked for a strong but workable REACH. Last week, after a two hour vote on amendments in the European Parliament, I could not in conscience vote for the tattered REACH that was left. For me two key elements were missling in the original document and were never really addressed. The document dealt with chemicals, metals and other substances in individual, isolated form. Which is OK if they are used in that form but this does not reflect the toxicity or safety of substances in combination, which is how chemicals are used in the vast majority of cases. REACH did not deal with this everyday phenomenon and was therefore rendered incapable of eliminating the now everyday phenomenon of serious, debilitating or even fatal illnesses like cancer.

The other problem is that REACH in the form it was finally presented to Euro MPs posed a real threat to business and this in the context of the EU militates against any real change. This was tragic because there was a way to have an effective chemical directive without threatening the economic survival of companies across Europe.

The final version of REACH was to no one's liking, according to the various EU group re-resentatives who spoke before the final vote. Though about 200 MEPs voted against REACH or abstained from voting for it, it was passed by the parliament. As far as I am concerned, everyone lost - most of all the citizens struggling with chemical overload. In the meantime let's keep fighting for better cancer treatment...as things are, we'll need it!

save preference

Comments (1 of 1)

I see where you're coming from but........

by Seán Ryan

Thu Nov 24, 2005 05:44

Greetings Kathy.

Let me start by offering my empathy and solidarity to you, having had friends and family go through the same ordeal, I think I begin know how you feel.

For me the worst realisation, even worse than the news of cancer itself was, the spirit robbing fact, that waiting lists were not a service, but the lack of one. The best that could be said of them is that they are an excellent way of measuring mortality rates in cases where little or no treatment, preventative or otherwise, has been offered.

Whilst I agree with you in principle, that chemicals and other substances should be moderated and controlled as part of an EU policy (or even, dare I say it; constitution.)

Or why not go the whole hog and make some international law covering the whole planet.

But you know what?

Ultimately I believe it to be redundant.

I'm not saying this to offer you insult or to make little of your concerns.

Allow me to explain myself.

Take an example: I secretly put rat poison into a neighbour's dinner. Have I done anything wrong?

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Each and every country on the face of the planet already has legislation covering the poisoning of its citizens.

The real issue here is, and I think that ultimately you'll agree with me, is that each and every government, put their economic interests above every interest of those they supposedly represent.

Fix that problem, and the fix required for our health service is a simple one and more to the point it can be worked along a definite time line.

Beds are not really an issue within our health crisis. Personell, facilities, training facilities and trainers are the problem. It is my contention, that there are enough people in this country that have both the intellect and more importantly the need, to fix our health crisis. And that the whole problem can be solved in the time it takes to train the person who requires the most training. (Whilst I'm at it any chance you'd get them to repeal patenting laws? Afterall, one's intellectual property only remains intellectual property as long as it remains in ones head.)

Interesting way of fixing things isn't it?

Let me give another example, this time using our "transport" service which I'm sure you'll agree is as sick as our health service.

Don't privatise it, that is to take the word "Irish" out of its description.

Make it free to everyone, after developing it to sufficient levels. This would mean a lot less cars on the road, no more traffic jams and hundreds of millions of wasted man hours, a massively reduced fuel bill for the country as a whole, it would start the control and de-infestation of insurance companies, banks and others, and it would dramatically cut down on road deaths (drunk driving would become more sinister if that be possible). Think of the envoirnment, all those reduced emissions.

See what I mean? When one approaches a problem to solve it rather than capitalise on it?

I seem to have got off topic somewhat here Kathy and I apologise for that, but I believe that you understand what I mean.

It's good to see an elected official write here so often, and usually on topics that I believe your heart motivates you to, rather than any political ambition. For that you have my respect.

I wish you, and especially your friends, comfort, solace and anwsers.

I look forwards to reading more of what you have to say.

Sláinte

Seán Ryan

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

Cancer and a lost opportunity

Comments (1 of 1)