Gynaecological cancer patients forced to travel from Wellington to Christchurch for surgery
Photo:
123RF
Health New Zealand has confirmed that more than 100 women with gynaecological cancer in Wellington must travel to Christchurch for surgery.
Chief Medical Officer of Capital Coast and Hutt Valley, Andre Cromhout, confirmed that Wellington Hospital's sole gynaeoncologist - who left the service in November last year - would not be replaced.
In a bid to "better utilise available clinical expertise", Health New Zealand was consolidating its services, he said. It means gynaecological oncology surgery over the next four to five years, would take place "mainly in Christchurch and Auckland".
Cromhout said the result was that 130 women per year in the central region - Wellington, Hutt Valley, Wairarapa, MidCentral, Whanganui, Taranaki and Hawke's Bay - would have to travel to Christchurch to receive more complex care.
He said there would be help with the logistical and financial challenges, but recognised "having to travel to Christchurch for treatment will be a significant inconvenience to many women and their families who are already distressed".
He said annually more than 600 women in the central region received gynae-oncology support and some surgery would still take place once-a-month in Wellington when a Christchurch-based gynaecological oncologist visited.
Other services, such as medical and radiation oncology and specialist nursing support for gynaecological oncology patients would also continue, he said.
"Our focus remains on ensuring we minimise the travel for patients and their families as much as possible. Work is underway to consider the best long-term approach for delivering gynaecological oncology services in the future.
"We don't anticipate that the decision to shift more acute surgeries from Wellington to Christchurch will materially affect wait times. These wait times will continue to be monitored."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Nurse fractures ankle but finishes shift due to staffing
health employment 17 minutes ago A West Auckland district nurse who fractured her ankle at work had to finish her shift because there was nobody to cover for her. Reporter Lucy Xia has more.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Anti-red tape bill a health risk, doctors say
Bill architect David Seymour insists it is about ensuring rules are actually justified and calls critics are "woefully misinformed". Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour insists his bill - the party's fourth attempt to get similar legislation passed - is about ensuring rules are actually justified and calls critics are "woefully misinformed". Hokianga farmer Tokowhati Piripi finally had his long-awaited heart surgery two weeks ago at Auckland City Hospital. He actually needed a second operation within 24 hours after a sudden life-threatening bleed, but is now recovering well. Teina Piripi, who once feared her husband would die on the waiting list, said the care he had received had been "incredible" - but the outcome for the vast majority of Māori was not so good. "There is no way of explaining why Māori receiving cardiac care survive 50 percent less than non Māori." Teina Piripi - who works as a Kaiāwhina (Māori health support worker) in Northland - said the problem with the Regulatory Standards Bill was that it claimed everyone was "equal under the law", but that was not supported by the facts. "All those laws were used to dispossess us and disenfranchise us from our land, from our ways of life, from our language. "They know this. So it is not equitable, and we don't receive equal care for our health and well-being, otherwise we wouldn't die seven years earlier than everyone else." The 2023 coalition agreement between ACT, National and New Zealand First included a pledge to pass a Regulatory Standards Act "as soon as practical" - but when passed, the bill will not be binding. It lays out a set of principles which law-makers, ministries and agencies must consider when looking at changes to regulation: people's freedom of choice and private property rights should not be unduly affected and there should be fair compensation. The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists - which represents the 6500 senior doctors and dentists working in public hospitals - was one of scores of health organisations, which made submissions against the bill. Senior policy and research advisor Virginia Mills said the RSB was about upholding individual rights - but that would not lead to equitable outcomes, especially in health and particularly for Māori. "It includes this formal principle that 'everyone is equal under the law', which on the surface sounds okay, but is actually quite a loaded principle because when it comes to health. "People have got different needs and require different treatments, and we know that treating everyone the same won't lead to the same outcomes." The RSB also saw regulation as "a negative hindrance" - red tape that needed cutting, she said. "But if you were to deregulate the health workforce for example, that could mean lowering the standard of education or experience or skills to do the job, which could lead directly to patient harm." Seymour - who is also associate health minister - said the RSB's aim was not deregulation. "These comments are woefully misinformed. "The bill does not have an emphasis on deregulation, so that is a false assumption from the get go. "The bill does have an emphasis on transparency and justification when rules are made." The proposed new law would have a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to its principles, with members appointed by the Minister for Regulation - currently Seymour. Psychiatrist Giles Newton-Howes said he and his colleagues had major concerns about what such transparency meant for health services. "Who makes the decisions about what regulations are appropriate or not and how that is measured? "And if that is done in economic terms, we're fundamentally missing the point. "You're trying to monetise health, and you can't do that." In its submission on the RSB, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said it was dangerous to allow two people (the Regulatory Standards Minister and the Attorney-General) to decide whether wider consultation was needed. "Without legislative expectation to consult with those who hold the most experience in particular spaces, such as psychiatry, we expose ourselves to the mercy of ministerial appointments and ideological frameworks that may not reflect evidence based best practice in health." The submission also noted a "one size fits all model" did not work in complex spaces, such as health and addiction, especially for those who were "persistently harmed by unconscious bias, systemic racism, and social drivers of intergenerational trauma". Newton-Howes said if New Zealanders were truly "equal under the law" in terms of health outcomes, some groups should be receiving more resources than they were. "You can pretty much name any objective you like and we're not [equal under the law], because we're under-serving people in poverty, people in rural areas, Māori and Pacific people, and particularly for mental health." Nurses Organisation chief executive Paul Goulter feared the bill would open the door to further privatisation of healthcare because it favoured business interests. "You get a tension between that collective right to a quality public health system and the private property owning rights. "And this bill takes you into the private property owning rights having dominance over the collective right to a quality public health system." Public health and legal experts have also warned of a potential "chilling effect" on public health measures . They point out that under the bill's "takings or impairment principle", it would allow commercial interests (such as the tobacco and alcohol industries or big polluters), to seek compensation from taxpayers if future legislation caused them to lose money. Seymour has denied the legislation could be weaponised by business interests. "The bill does not anywhere mention, preserving the right to make a profit, so such an objection could never be raised. I would be very happy to sit down with these people and address their concerns, because it appears to me that they have not properly understood the bill before criticising it." The RSB made it clear it created no new legal rights or obligations enforceable through the courts. Furthermore, there was provision under the bill to "constrain" someone's liberties in order to secure the same liberty for others, Seymour said. "That is how you would justify a restriction on polluting the air or water that other people breathe or swim, for example. "If people feel their proposals will not withstand scrutiny, the answer is not to oppose scrutiny but come up with better proposals." However, leading medical oncologist Associate Professor George Laking, Māori Clinical Director at Auckland University's Centre for Cancer Research, remained sceptical. "If you look at the history of environmental catastrophes around the world, they're all carried by people who don't have power to affect the political process, and those are the ones who end up with trash and pollution and the knock on health effects of that. "So sure, there may be provision to deal with pollution under the RSB, but it's much more likely to be dealt with if it irritates someone who's wealthy." There was a risk the "broad brush" legislation with its narrow focus on economic measures could be used - for instance - to change Pharmac's current remit of focusing on patient outcomes, he said. "Of course efficiency is important but what I object to is this elevation of efficiency as the 'be all and end all'. It's not as simple as that." He was disturbed by Seymour's tongue-in-cheek remarks following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute in London last month, in which he credited smokers with saving governmental balance sheets by paying lots of excise tax and not claiming a pension. "This Minister's clearly not interested in health outcomes if he's going to jokingly refer to people who smoke as so-called 'fiscal heroes'. He's much more interested in fiscal outcomes than health outcomes." Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Select Committee is meeting all this week to hear submissions and is due to report back in November. Meanwhile, Teina Piripi was looking forward to taking her husband home to Northland ahead of the birth of their new mokopuna next month. Several times a day, while visiting him at Auckland City Hospital, she has walked past a plaque commemorating the fact the land for it was donated by Ngāti Whātua chief Āpihai Te Kawau in 1847. "Most of our hospitals in this country are built on Māori land - and why? "It's because Māori care about people. It's innate to our understanding. "This bill denies history and the present and the breaches and inequities that come from denying that racism exists." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Some people with disabilities still terrified of leaving their homes after Covid discrimination
Thalidomide survivor Barry de Geest told a Royal Commission of Inquiry of the impact the Covid-19 response has had on people living with disabilities. Photo: Barry De Geest Some people with disabilities are still terrified of leaving their homes, an advocate has told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response. The week-long hearing is underway in Auckland. It is concentrating on the impact of the extended lockdown in Auckland and Northland in 2021, and on vaccine mandates and safety. Thalidomide survivor Barry de Geest told the commissioners of the profound impact Covid lockdowns continue to have on people living with disabilities. "They were terrified actually, and we even have people today that still won't come out of their houses because of the terrifying effects of what they were told, what the media was saying, what other people were saying, so they still won't come out into the community because they're just terrified of what could happen." He said disabled people faced discrimination because they were often mask or vaccine exempt. "The number of people we had crying because they were uptown or done something, and they were being abused by people saying 'put your mask on', 'think of us'," de Geest said. "There was so much of that." Barry de Geest told the inquiry the longer lockdowns went on, the more isolated disabled people felt. "No thought was given to the social side of how people were supported," he said. "It was more about having borders and checkpoints and stuff, rather than saying how can we entertain people because they can't go to the movies, they can't go out for dinner, and so I think that has impacted people considerably." Dr Nick Long from the CARUL Collective, an international group of social science researchers looking at reactions to the pandemic, said lockdowns were a blunt instrument. "It's important to have clarity, but clarity doesn't need to translate into a blunt, one size fits all approach, which was something that people sometimes experienced," he said. His colleague, Dr Antje Deckert said it was difficult balancing the government's message of being kind while also enforcing lockdown rules with family, friends and neighbours. "What we found was that the peer-to-peer policing proved highly ineffective , because not one of our research participants said that peer-to-peer policing had spurred them into obeying Covid-19 restrictions," she said. Deckert said 63,000 lockdown breaches were reported to police by citizens during levels two, three and four. Speaking alongside other general practitioners, Dr Fiona Bolden said the situation could have been much worse. "If we had gone ahead as happened in other countries, we would have had extreme difficulty managing that number of extremely unwell people, and I'm sure more people would have died as a result." The inquiry continued on Wednesday, with commissioners expected to hear about the impact on the education sector, Māori health and Auckland's ethnic communities. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
