You may wonder why I choose to publish the Cancer Act 1939,
but since it is something we have had to be aware of in regard to our
convention this October, it is surprising just how restrictive this act is to
free speech and knowledge.
Of course we are all aware that with free speech goes a
level of responsibility, but are we to first assume that we do not have a
'level of responsibility'? And are we to assume that should a person with a
diagnosis of a disease such as cancer, suddenly lose the ability to be
discerning or have the capacity of judgement on their own health?
If we are to assume
that a person cannot make a considered choice, then why do we accept that their
only choice should be whether to opt for the conventional route is also
sound?
The traditional route of course is free at the point of
delivery, but that doesn't make it the only choice that should be given. If a
better treatment might be on offer elsewhere, then why can’t those be given 'free' under the NHS.
We surely cannot deny
people an opportunity to know what is available and have open speech on it. No
one can talk of cure in any illness, basically it is the body that will cure or
not. It depends on the treatment given and to how it responds to it, no matter
what that treatment is. We must
recognise that a range of treatments is needed to cope with the fact that
cancer is very individual in its onset and development. If it was predictable,
then I’m sure a 'cure' or 'magic bullet' would have been found by now for us
all to follow.
This act seems to do just that!, deny opportunity. If it is
only those already in the medical profession that are allowed to hear others
speak on alternative methods of treating cancer and to have the opportunity to
question constructively those who are suggesting other routes that may work
alongside or as stand-alone treatments, then the public at large is being
denied a right to be fully informed of methods that may help them or someone
they know.
I fully appreciate
that the act was considered to protect people at a vulnerable time from
charlatans and anyone offering a ‘magic cure' but i think we must have moved on
from this and given that the 'cure' rates of cancer in most forms is still
appallingly low using the methods currently accepted in the NHS, isn't it time
to allow an integrative approach?
What better opportunity for everyone to be able to hear and
ask questions of the very people who are developing treatments rather than
suffocate the expansion of knowledge that can lead to better decisions.
I find it amazing
that those who have blogged and written against the conference in October this
year, have not seen it as an opportunity to ask the very questions they seem to
have already formed the answers to, of the professionals they seem to so
despise.
Having taught, i
suppose the wanting to suppress knowledge and the attempts to deny others an
opportunity of knowledge, is an anathema to me.
Whether we agree or not with the views of speakers is hardly something
you can decide prior to hearing them
speak!
So as long as we do
not advertise the conference as treatments for cancer and of course do not
allow speakers to suggest this, then we remain within the 1939 Act? Moreover,
that by not advertising to members of the public but health professionals only,
we can only be operating within the act, whether members of the public are in
attendance or not.
After all, are we to check everyone that requests a ticket
are of sufficiently sound mind and judgement, as others seem to imply, can only
be the case of those in possession of or training for a medical
qualification.
It would seem then that members of the public need not apply
as this law deems us to be suddenly devoid of all intelligence and reason as
soon as the word 'cancer' is mooted
Is that the way it
should be? Or should you be allowed to attend and hear from the speakers
direct?
The 1939 Cancer Act.........
4Prohibition of certain advertisements.
(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—
(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or
(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1
(2)If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2fifty pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2one hundred pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.
(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3
(4)In any proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—
(a)that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of persons of the following classes or of one or some of them, that is to say,—
(i)members of either House of Parliament or of a local authority or of a governing body of a voluntary hospital;
(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F4
(iii)registered medical practitioners;
(iv)registered nurses;
(v)registered pharmacists and [F5persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 69 of the M1Medicines Act 1968];
(vi)persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists;
(vii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6
(b)that the said advertisement was published only in a publication of a technical character intended for circulation mainly amongst persons of the classes mentioned in the last preceding paragraph or one of some of those classes; or
(c)that the said advertisement was published in such circumstances that he did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication thereof.
(5)Nothing in this section shall apply in respect of any advertisement published by a local authority or by the governing body of a voluntary hospital or by any person acting with the sanction of the Minister.
(6)A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted in England or Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General F7. . ..
(7)Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to institute proceedings under this section.
(8)In this section the expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1S. 4(1)(b) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6
F2Words “level 3 on the standard scale” substituted (S. ) for words “fifty pounds” and “one hundred pounds” in each case by virtue of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289E–289G
F3S. 4(3) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6
F4S. (4)(a)(ii) repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986 (c. 12), s. 1(1), Sch. 1 Pt. VIII
F5Words substituted by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 5 para. 10
F6S. 4(4)(a) (vii) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6
F7Words in s. 4(6) repealed (30.9.1997) by 1997 c. 60, s. 3(2), Sch.
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), ss. 35 (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), 38 (increase of fines) and 46 (substitution of references to levels on the standard scale) apply (E. W. )
C2Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289E (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), applies (S. )
Marginal Citations
No comments:
Post a Comment