10 per cent of the world uses 90 per cent of the morphine: this needs to change

Pain relief and palliative care is a human right - and yet global access to drugs is grossly unequal. Change is urgently needed.

10 per cent of the world consumes 90 per cent of the morphine. At first glance that's just another statistic about haves and have nots. But it's more stark than that - particularly if you have cancer in a country where access to pain relief is very limited.

At the heart of the issue is the problem of giving access to drugs and how that's managed. Making drugs available, even under controlled circumstances, is seen in many countries to be facilitating crime and corruption. As a result the legislation in some countries will use language like "addictive drugs" to describe pain relief that people in the developed world see as a basic human necessity, and the only way to avoid a horrific end to many lives: the 12 million people with cancer, but also those with advanced heart, lung or kidney diseases, progressive neurological diseases, HIV/AIDS or tuberculosis.

The various legal and regulatory barriers, mostly relating to prescribing and dispensing of opioids (medications that relieve pain, such as morphine), is just one of the problems. Inevitably there's an issue with costs. Pharmaceutical companies have little interest in producing cheap oral morphine because profits are only marginal. In Ukraine, for example, that means only injectable morphine is available. So patients with chronic cancer pain need painful injections several times per day and may be left without pain relief for hours between. Attitudes among healthcare professionals will vary from country to country. Often there's fear at the possibility of prosecution from prescribing analgesics and a desire to avoid taking any responsibility in a murky area. Even when a law might recognise that controlled medicines are necessary, healthcare staff will be wary of the potential for being investigated and the kinds of disproportionate punishments that might await them.

The under-treatment of cancer pain is a major public health crisis in both developing economies and many parts of the 'under-developed' world. There have been isolated efforts by international organizations to address the problem, but the headline is that little headway has been made. Research led by the European Association for Palliative Care has looked at treatment of cancer pain across 76 countries between 2010 and 2012, showing highly restrictive regulations on what patients can receive in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin and Central America. Expert observers saw that very few countries provided all seven of the opioid medications considered essential for the relief of cancer pain in international guidelines. In many countries, fewer than three of the seven medications are available, and when medications are available they are either entirely unsubsidised or weakly subsidised by government, with limited availability. Restrictions for cancer patients include regulations that limit entitlement to receive prescriptions, limits on duration of prescriptions, restricted dispensing, and large amounts of bureaucracy around the whole prescribing and dispensing process.

Eastern Europe is also a crisis area. Essential opioid medicines are completely unavailable in Lithuania, Tajikistan, Belarus, Albania, Georgia and Ukraine. There are problems elsewhere, including Russia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina with regulations that limit physicians' ability to prescribe opioids even for patients in severe pain; arbitrary dosage limits, and intimidating health care providers and pharmacists with severe legal sanctions - all contravening regulations from the WHO and International Narcotic Control Board which recommend that opioids should be available for cancer patients at hospital and community levels and that physicians should be able to prescribe opioids according to the individual needs of each patient.

Legislation makes issues black and white when more debate and education is needed among the decision makers in health care systems. Health policies are needed that integrate palliative care as a normal part of health services, and provide support to relatives during the time of care and after death; excessive restrictions that prevent legitimate access to medications need to be identified and stripped away; and crucially, more attention to providing safe and secure distribution systems that allow staff and patients access to opioids no matter where they are. There's also a lack of training among physicians and staff on the ground treating suffering patients about the issues, and what they can and can't do. A basic knowledge of palliative care needs to be part of undergraduate training for all healthcare workers, along with specialty palliative care programmes for postgrads.

Access to palliative care is a human right, and failure - by governments - to provide palliative care could be seen as constituting cruel or inhuman treatment. More concerted pressure is needed from everyone involved in healthcare worldwide, in policy or delivery, if these basic principles are going to result in changes that are urgently needed.

Professor Sheila Payne is chair of the European Association for Palliative Care, Lancaster University. The Prague Charter, calling for access to palliative care as a human right, can be signed at http://www.eapcnet.eu

A nurse walks with children outside an orphanage and hospital in Addis Ababa. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.