Cancer survivors should be heard

“Talk to us,” prostate cancer survivor John Baxter recently urged the Ontario government.

And considering that the Cambridge man has benefitted greatly from a relatively new robotic surgical treatment that is not entirely funded by OHIP, the government needs to hear what he’s saying — and why he wants the procedure fully covered.

Last year, Baxter underwent robotic surgery to have his cancerous prostate gland removed at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton.

Like other cancer patients who’ve had the operation there, Baxter is convinced it’s superior to alternative, open surgery with its bigger incision.

Robotic surgery is less invasive, causes less pain and less blood loss.

Just as important, patients leave hospital sooner — often next day — and have quicker recoveries.

That said, robotic surgery is more expensive, costing an additional $6,000 each time. At St. Joseph’s Hospital, charitable donations currently make up the difference.

Relying on the kindness of strangers, however, is no substitute for full government funding in the long term, Baxter and others argue. They fear the procedure will be harder to get.

Despite this, a report by the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee recommended in July against full provincial funding for robotic prostate surgery.

The committee said there’s no evidence it’s better than the traditional procedure and this means its additional costs — estimated at $3.4 million a year in Ontario — are unjustified. So far, the Ministry of Health has made no decision. Yet as it ponders the issue, it should realize there’s a glaring oversight in the advisory committee’s 172-page report.

The voices of patients are nowhere to be found in it or the investigation that preceded it.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer to afflict Canadian men and one in seven of them will eventually be diagnosed with it. More than 4,000 of those men will die each year. By all means, the government should look at medical statistics and costs. But the fears, feelings and experiences of cancer patients must be taken into account.

The government should also remember that five consulting urologists who contributed to the advisory committee’s report asked to have their names taken off it because they disagreed so strongly with its conclusions.

It could be that when the hard facts are dispassionately weighed, the ministry will conclude it should not yet fully fund robotic prostate cancer surgery. But it should keep an open mind. The government should talk to the men who have benefitted from this surgery before deciding on whether to free up a little more money for it.

The government has committed to consulting the chairs of Ontario’s surgical training programs, which is important. Funding robotic surgery for prostate cancer could mean the procedure will be used more widely for other illnesses and could have a major impact on physician recruitment and retention.

“This is the future of surgery,” says Dr. Anthony Adili, St. Joseph’s chief of staff. There are many weapons in the fight against cancer. Governments should take care before rejecting any one of them.