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
Show Hide image

After Richmond Park, Labour MPs are haunted by a familiar ghost

Labour MPs in big cities fear the Liberal Democrats, while in the north, they fear Ukip. 

The Liberal Democrats’ victory in Richmond Park has Conservatives nervous, and rightly so. Not only did Sarah Olney take the votes of soft Conservatives who backed a Remain vote on 23 June, she also benefited from tactical voting from Labour voters.

Although Richmond Park is the fifth most pro-Remain constituency won by a Conservative at the 2015 election, the more significant number – for the Liberal Democrats at least – is 15: that’s the number of Tory-held seats they could win if they reduced the Labour vote by the same amount they managed in Richmond Park.

The Tories have two Brexit headaches, electorally speaking. The first is the direct loss of voters who backed David Cameron in 2015 and a Remain vote in 2016 to the Liberal Democrats. The second is that Brexit appears to have made Liberal Democrat candidates palatable to Labour voters who backed the party as the anti-Conservative option in seats where Labour is generally weak from 1992 to 2010, but stayed at home or voted Labour in 2015.

Although local council by-elections are not as dramatic as parliamentary ones, they offer clues as to how national elections may play out, and it’s worth noting that Richmond Park wasn’t the only place where the Liberal Democrats saw a dramatic surge in the party’s fortunes. They also made a dramatic gain in Chichester, which voted to leave.

(That’s the other factor to remember in the “Leave/Remain” divide. In Liberal-Conservative battlegrounds where the majority of voters opted to leave, the third-placed Labour and Green vote tends to be heavily pro-Remain.)

But it’s not just Conservatives with the Liberal Democrats in second who have cause to be nervous.  Labour MPs outside of England's big cities have long been nervous that Ukip will do to them what the SNP did to their Scottish colleagues in 2015. That Ukip is now in second place in many seats that Labour once considered safe only adds to the sense of unease.

In a lot of seats, the closeness of Ukip is overstated. As one MP, who has the Conservatives in second place observed, “All that’s happened is you used to have five or six no-hopers, and all of that vote has gone to Ukip, so colleagues are nervous”. That’s true, to an extent. But it’s worth noting that the same thing could be said for the Liberal Democrats in Conservative seats in 1992. All they had done was to coagulate most of the “anyone but the Conservative” vote under their banner. In 1997, they took Conservative votes – and with it, picked up 28 formerly Tory seats.

Also nervous are the party’s London MPs, albeit for different reasons. They fear that Remain voters will desert them for the Liberal Democrats. (It’s worth noting that Catherine West, who sits for the most pro-Remain seat in the country, has already told constituents that she will vote against Article 50, as has David Lammy, another North London MP.)

A particular cause for alarm is that most of the party’s high command – Jeremy Corbyn, Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott, and Keir Starmer – all sit for seats that were heavily pro-Remain. Thornberry, in particular, has the particularly dangerous combination of a seat that voted Remain in June but has flirted with the Liberal Democrats in the past, with the shadow foreign secretary finishing just 484 votes ahead of Bridget Fox, the Liberal Democrat candidate, in 2005.

Are they right to be worried? That the referendum allowed the Liberal Democrats to reconfigure the politics of Richmond Park adds credence to a YouGov poll that showed a pro-Brexit Labour party finishing third behind a pro-second referendum Liberal Democrat party, should Labour go into the next election backing Brexit and the Liberal Democrats opt to oppose it.

The difficulty for Labour is the calculation for the Liberal Democrats is easy. They are an unabashedly pro-European party, from their activists to their MPs, and the 22 per cent of voters who back a referendum re-run are a significantly larger group than the eight per cent of the vote that Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats got in 2015.

The calculus is more fraught for Labour. In terms of the straight Conservative battle, their best hope is to put the referendum question to bed and focus on issues which don’t divide their coalition in two, as immigration does. But for separate reasons, neither Ukip nor the Liberal Democrats will be keen to let them.

At every point, the referendum question poses difficulties for Labour. Even when neither Ukip nor the Liberal Democrats take seats from them directly, they can hurt them badly, allowing the Conservatives to come through the middle.

The big problem is that the stance that makes sense in terms of maintaining party unity is to try to run on a ticket of moving past the referendum and focussing on the party’s core issues of social justice, better public services and redistribution.

But the trouble with that approach is that it’s alarmingly similar to the one favoured by Kezia Dugdale and Scottish Labour in 2016, who tried to make the election about public services, not the constitution. They came third, behind a Conservative party that ran on an explicitly pro-Union platform. The possibility of an English sequel should not be ruled out.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.