Cancer patients, be wary of taking those popular obesity drugs
Cancer patients must speak to their doctor before taking weight-loss jabs, a British charity has warned, amid a rise in people seeking help over whether they can take them.
Macmillan Cancer Support said that while 'quick fixes' may seem appealing, there is currently not enough evidence over how the drugs might affect anti-cancer treatments.
It said that more research is needed, but that it was already known the drugs may affect how other medicines are absorbed by the body.
This may include some anti-cancer drugs, it said.
The organisation's national clinical adviser Dr Owen Carter said: 'Recently, we have seen a noticeable increase in calls to Macmillan's free support line and a flurry of messages on our peer-to-peer online community about weight-loss drugs.
'We know that cancer affects everybody differently and it's understandable that lots of people are interested in new drugs which accelerate weight loss, particularly if they want to manage their weight before or after treatment for cancer.
'While 'quick fixes' may seem attractive, we simply do not know enough about the long-term impact of these weight-loss medications to recommend them if they're not prescribed by a specialist.
'Additionally, certain weight-loss medications carry warnings about a potential link with thyroid cancer.
'However, we know that eating well and staying as active as possible are proven to help people feel better, increase their energy levels and strengthen their immune systems, which can help them to manage their weight and cope better with cancer treatment.
'If you have questions about cancer, including about weight-loss drugs, we urge you to speak to your GP [general practitioner] or call the Macmillan support line [in Britain].
The charity said that it has now published new information on its website about the weight-loss drugs and cancer. – PA Media/dpa
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
10 hours ago
- The Star
Tiny robots could soon clear sinus infections without drugs
BEIJING: Scientists from China and Hong Kong say they have created tiny robots that can help clear serious bacterial infections deep inside the sinuses, without the need for surgery or drugs. Published in Science Robotics , the study explains how these micro-robots, smaller than a strand of human hair, can be guided using magnets and light. They work by breaking down tough bacterial layers and creating substances that kill bacteria. A sinus infection, also known as sinusitis or rhinosinusitis, is an inflammation of the sinuses – air-filled spaces in the bones around the nose and eyes. When these tissues inside this space become swollen or infected, they can cause symptoms like a stuffy or runny nose, facial pain or pressure, headaches, and sometimes a reduced sense of smell or taste. In tests on animals, researchers injected these micro-robots through the nose into the sinus cavity. Once inside, the robots were guided to the infection site and activated to produce heat and chemical reactions to destroy the bacteria. These robots were able to safely remove infections in rabbits, with the dead bacteria being cleared naturally. The scientists at the Chinese University in Hong Kong, and universities in Guangxi, Shenzhen, Jiangsu, Yangzhou and Macau expect the new approach might to reduce the need for antibiotics and other common treatments. The researchers believe that within five to 10 years, micro-robots could also be used to treat infections in the bladder, intestines, and other hard-to-reach areas. Scientists from around the world are working on even more advanced versions that could travel through the bloodstream, offering new ways to fight infections and deliver medicine more precisely. – dpa
Daily Express
a day ago
- Daily Express
Costly private or over-burdened govt hosps?
Published on: Sunday, July 06, 2025 Published on: Sun, Jul 06, 2025 By: Lee Ke Yin, Tee Chen Giap Text Size: RECENTLY, Malaysians have been bombarded with headlines about rising medical costs, forcing many to either pay up, or forgo private healthcare, and turn to the 'near-collapsed' public healthcare system. Both are undesirable options. Meanwhile, across the globe, just a few months ago, Luigi Mangione, in a moment of rage and desperation, pulled the trigger on Brian Thompson, the CEO of a major US health insurance company. Advertisement The impact of the gunshots that were fired in New York still continue to ripple throughout the world. To some, it was an act of senseless violence. To others, it was the breaking point for a man who saw himself as a victim of a healthcare system that decides who gets to live and who doesn't. While Malaysia's healthcare system differs significantly from that of the US, we are similarly facing a dire healthcare crisis: Malaysians find themselves trapped between unaffordable private care and an overstretched public system struggling to provide essential services. As our country navigates this two-pronged healthcare crisis, what can be done before it collapses and creates our own Luigi Mangione? Generally, healthcare systems follow either the Bismarck model, developed by Otto von Bismarck, Germany's first chancellor, or the Beveridge model, developed by William Beveridge, a British economist-politician. The Bismarck model was adopted to build healthcare funded by private insurance and employers, as reflected in the US, while the Beveridge model gave birth to the taxpayer-funded National Health Service in the UK, which the Ministry of Health Malaysia (MoH) system is based on. However, as demand for healthcare grew, private hospitals, health insurance schemes and employer-sponsored medical benefits rapidly sprouted in the country. This was how the two-tiered healthcare system started in Malaysia: A taxpayer-funded public healthcare system and a market-driven, predominantly insurance-based private healthcare system. The key difference between the US' and Malaysia's healthcare systems is that while Malaysians can always rely on the 'safety net' of taxpayer-funded public healthcare, Americans do not have this 'privilege'. This prompts a crucial question: Is healthcare a fundamental human right, or is it merely a privilege dictated by power and economic forces? Malaysians know very well that our public healthcare system has long been overstrained. It suffers from overcrowding and extremely long waiting times. In some government hospitals, it is not unknown for patients in emergency departments to experience waiting times of over 24 hours before being admitted. The bed occupancy rate (BOR) in some hospitals has even surpassed 100pc, leading to the use of makeshift beds in corridors. Furthermore, the pressure on doctors and nurses is evident from the newspaper headlines that range from 'Malaysia's medical graduates glut' to 'It's back to a shortage of doctors', the contract doctors' strike (Hartal Doktor Kontrak), and the recent government mandate for longer working hours for government staff nurses. This issue is exacerbated by the low level of public healthcare spending, where the latest regional data in 2021 shows that it amounts to only 4.38pc of Malaysia's gross domestic product — significantly lower than our neighbours (Thailand 5.16pc, the Philippines 5.87pc, Singapore 5.57pc) and well below the spending level seen in developed countries (more than 10pc of GDP). While Malaysians often pride themselves on the 'cost effectiveness' of our healthcare system, it comes at the price of quality healthcare delivery due to a long-standing mismatch between supply and demand. All of this leads to poorer health outcomes for Malaysians, from delays in receiving crucial treatment to constraints in accessing more effective (but costly) treatment options. Till today, discussions among stakeholders have largely focused on public health, and the legal and economic aspects of the healthcare crisis. A crucial, fresh perspective needs to be introduced to the discussion table. As healthcare decisions and policies are enacted that benefit particular stakeholders while depriving others, these should be viewed as active exercises of 'biopower'. The term 'biopower' was popularised by an influential French historian and philosopher, Michel Foucault, in the mid-20th century. It refers to the state and institutions actively regulating lives, health, reproduction and mortality, with the ultimate goal of managing populations. In modern societies, power is no longer limited to traditional sovereign control, as it can manifest in more subtle mechanisms such as policies, health normalisation and surveillance — ultimately deciding who lives and dies within a population. In other words, it has shifted from a 'power to take life [away]' to a 'power over life', or rather, a power to 'help live and let die'. The state actively controls resource allocation and determines the standard of healthcare accessible to the population, shaping health outcomes through policy decisions. It has sadly become 'normal' for Malaysians to suffer complications of diabetes, such as heart disease, cancers, and including amputations, despite these being largely preventable especially when benchmarked against other nations. When diagnosed with diabetes, Malaysians often do not feel an urgency to regain control of their health due to the 'norm' set by current policies, budgets and healthcare standards — a downwards spiralling continuum. The fact that Malaysia is the most obese country in Southeast Asia — due to lifestyle, food and health literacy factors, all of which are influenced by policies through biopower — makes it even less surprising that we have the highest prevalence of diabetes in Asean. This forces us to confront a difficult reality: Who is being left behind or, to use the words of Foucault, 'to let die', in the pursuit of economic efficiency? On the other hand, in private healthcare, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, as seen in University Malaya Medical Centre's medical fees surging by over 200pc, to insurance companies reportedly intending to increase healthcare premiums by up to 70pc this year, until regulators intervened. While the existence of a two-tier system offers more options for Malaysians seeking medical treatment, many such treatments remain out of reach: Only 22pc of Malaysians are insured by personal medical insurance. More worryingly, a stark number of Malaysians are going bankrupt due to healthcare expenditure. Out of 8,321 debt default cases solved by the Credit Counselling and Debt Management Agency (AKPK) in 2015, some 14.3pc was due to high medical costs. The rapid rise in medical inflation will drive more Malaysians away from private healthcare, while further overwhelming the already strained public healthcare. At face value, the decision by faceless bureaucrats to hike medical fees can always be justified through economic reasoning. However, we must critically examine how the decisions of these institutions, even when driven by economic logic, can profoundly shape the lives of Malaysians. The framing of healthcare as a mere commodity — subject to market forces and investor returns — should be challenged, especially when discussions reduce it to a numbers game. Political philosopher Michael J Sandel's words are especially relevant: 'We cannot actually put a monetary value on human life ... to do so is to treat lives as commodities rather than as beings worthy of respect and dignity.' As healthcare costs continue to rise under the guise of economic necessity, we must first recognise this as an expression of biopower, where systemic policies and economic forces end up shaping who gets to live well and who is left behind. Observing the healthcare systems via the lens of biopower offers two major benefits: First, biopower reveals that healthcare is never neutral; it is shaped by policies that can reflect political agenda. Next, acknowledging this fosters crucial discussions surrounding healthcare injustices, and reinforces healthcare as a fundamental human right for all. Recent developments, including stakeholder engagements and public hearings by the Public Accounts Committee, mark a crucial step forward in fostering inclusive polylogue on healthcare costs. These discussions facilitate a comprehensive review of hospital charges and insurance premiums. Bank Negara Malaysia's decision to impose a 10pc cap on insurance premium hikes reflects an institutional willingness to balance economic considerations with public welfare. While efforts are made to evaluate inefficiencies and unjustified pricing distortions, the rakyat must exercise democracy themselves by actively participating in town halls and public hearings. This collective effort helps to hold leaders and policymakers accountable, serving as a counterbalance to the structural power that shapes healthcare outcomes in society. The Malaysian Philosophy Society urges the government to prioritise healthcare budget allocations to bring transformative changes to the public healthcare system. The long-held notion of national pride in a 'low cost and efficient' public healthcare model is no longer sustainable, as the widening cracks in the system make evident. To meet the growing healthcare needs of the population, proactive investments and systemic reforms are imperative. Apart from that, we echo the call for transparent pricing methodologies and ethical costing models used in healthcare to curb the exponential rate of medical inflation due to predatory practices. Ignoring these realities risks abandoning more lives from both fronts of healthcare sectors and recreating our very own Mangione in Malaysia. Lee Ke Yin is a content curator at the Malaysian Philosophy Society and a student at University Malaya. Dr Tee Chen Giap is a medical doctor and co-founder of the Malaysian Philosophy Society. The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
The Star
2 days ago
- The Star
Becoming a father changes your brain
Just as mothers experience the phenomenon known as 'mum brain'; researchers say fathers also undergo changes in their brains after being thrust into their new family role. — Photos: dpa It's not only mothers who experience profound changes around the birth of a child; fathers also show measurable adjustments in brain structure and hormone balance, according to new research led by professor of psychology Dr Darby Saxbe at the University of Southern California in the United States. Results from brain scans show that the cortex – the part of the brain responsible for higher cognitive functions – also changes in fathers, explains the director of the university's Neuroendocrinology of Social Ties (NEST) Lab in the American Psychological Association (APA) podcast Speaking of Psychology . The changes are more subtle than in mothers, but nevertheless detectable, and they appear to promote the fathers' ability to care. There are also changes in hormone levels. The testosterone levels of many fathers fall after the birth, something associated with a higher motivation to look after the baby, she explains. Less testosterone can mean more closeness to the child, as well as a better quality of relationship during the transition to parenthood. At the same time, it was shown that partners of fathers with lower testosterone reported fewer depressive symptoms, provided that the relationship was good. Poor sleep is a constant companion of young parents. According to Prof Saxbe's research, lack of sleep is a consequence rather than a cause of brain changes. Those who are particularly involved in caring for the baby often sleep less well, but the brain seems to want to 'remodel' itself precisely for this purpose. Her research also suggests that fatherhood is a real 'development window' for the brain, comparable to adolescence or childhood. 'Every window of change is a window of vulnerability, but it's also a window of opportunity,' says the professor, whose book Dad Brain is due to be published next year (2026). Anyone who initially feels that they are unable to concentrate like they used to need not worry immediately. This is because children boost their parents' memory: they sharpen their cognitive skills and parents have 'more ability to remember and retrieve things' that are related to the child. Another key finding: fathers who take parental leave benefit, but mothers benefit even more. They sleep better, are less stressed and show fewer depressive symptoms, Prof Saxbe's research showed. 'It was really the mums that had the biggest benefit.' Paternity leave is something that not only benefits parents, but the whole family. 'We know it has benefits for the children. 'We also know that it's beneficial for the partner. 'And I think that anything you can do to take the pressure off the family system is also a way of managing stress.' – dpa
