With Your help we raise just over two thousand pounds in this year charity day, so a huge thank you to everyone for again supporting us and for remembering dad with such affection.
We are going to organise a sponsored walk in the summer from Holywell to Poo Castle (Southern Water Building Langney Point), so a nice little stroll.
Gary Maynard won the golf this year, so well done to him and to all the other golfers who took part, thanks to you all.
The 2010 charity day will be held on Saturday 25th September with the golf again at Horam Park Golf Club.
For more details go to http://www.bobtolleyfund.co.uk/
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Phase II Clinical Trials Begin In Australia
The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that biotechnology company Bionomics is set to begin a Phase II clinical trial of its anti-cancer drug, BNC105, at up to 12 cancer treatment centers across Australia. The company plans to include 60 Mesothelioma patients in the drug trial.
According to the Herald report, this Phase II study comes on the heels of a successful Phase I clinical trial of Bionomics’ BNC105, which was administered to patients with advanced cancers at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Western Hospital, Austin Health and the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
Bionomics has contacted the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group (ALTG) and the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre (CTC) to conduct the clinical trial. No date has yet been set for the trial start.
BNC105 is described as “a novel anti-cancer agent which is both a vascular disrupting agent (VDA) and an inhibitor of cancer cell proliferation.”
For more information about the Phase II clinical trial of BNC105 for mesothelioma patients in Australia, email clinicaltrials@bionomics.com.au. You can also find out more information about ongoing clinical trials in Australia and New Zealand by visiting the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) at www.anzctr.org.au.
According to the Herald report, this Phase II study comes on the heels of a successful Phase I clinical trial of Bionomics’ BNC105, which was administered to patients with advanced cancers at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, the Western Hospital, Austin Health and the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
Bionomics has contacted the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group (ALTG) and the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre (CTC) to conduct the clinical trial. No date has yet been set for the trial start.
BNC105 is described as “a novel anti-cancer agent which is both a vascular disrupting agent (VDA) and an inhibitor of cancer cell proliferation.”
For more information about the Phase II clinical trial of BNC105 for mesothelioma patients in Australia, email clinicaltrials@bionomics.com.au. You can also find out more information about ongoing clinical trials in Australia and New Zealand by visiting the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) at www.anzctr.org.au.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
AsbestosTimebomb - Government's Response
Details of Petition:
“We urge the Prime Minister to work towards implementing the five campaign demands. These are: A £10 million National Centre for Asbestos Related Disease to find better treatment, alleviate suffering and find a cure for mesothelioma. Compensation reinstated for victims of “pleural plaques” – scars on lungs caused by asbestos – after it was scrapped two years ago. Fair and equal compensation for asbestos disease sufferers who can’t trace the insurers of the bosses who exposed them, through a new Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau paid for by the insurance industry. A public register of all asbestos surveys carried out on public buildings. The Health and Safety Executive must be given the resources to meet its own targets for inspecting asbestos removal work.”"
Read the Government’s response
On 17 October 2007, the Law Lords unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal decision that the existence of pleural plaques does not constitute actionable or compensatable damage. The Court of Appeal decision marked the end of a period during which it was possible for damages to be awarded for negligent exposure to asbestos, which had led to the presence of pleural plaques. In light of representations made by individuals and organisations who strongly disagreed with the Law Lords’ decision, the Government published a consultation into the issue on 9 July 2008, seeking views on the most appropriate means of responding to the House of Lords decision on pleural plaques.
In total, the Government received 224 responses to its consultation paper, as well as reports on the medical evidence on pleural plaques prepared for the Chief Medical Officer for England and Wales and by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. As Jack Straw indicated in the House of Commons on 21 July 2009, the Government will give further consideration to the issue of compensation for pleural plaques before publishing a final response.
The Daily Mirror’s campaign also calls for the establishment of an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau, which would act as a fund of last resort for claimants with mesothelioma who are unable to trace insurers. This would operate on a comparable basis to the Motor Insurance Bureau, where there is a similar captive insurance liability market, which covers accidents involving uninsured drivers. The Government appreciates that there are strong views in favour of an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau and is looking at this matter closely. While the Government does want to ensure fairness to individuals who cannot trace their insurer, it is conscious that there are complexities associated with an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau that would require insurers to take on a cost that they did not have an opportunity to reflect in their business models. The Government is looking closely at the arguments for and against an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau, in the context of the wider work on tracing.
The Government understands the situation facing those individuals who struggle to trace a relevant insurance policy. While the vast majority of individuals, around 98 per cent, are able to find an employer or insurer to claim against, this does not in any way reduce the distress and difficulty faced by those who cannot. The Government also fully accepts that these individuals are disproportionately likely to be suffering from diseases such as mesothelioma and that, on top of a terrible disease, they face a lack of compensation. This is why the Government set up the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and 2008 Mesothelioma Scheme.
It is, of course, also important that we continue to look for ways of improving tracing levels. The Employers’ Liability Code of Practice, a voluntary code operated by the insurance industry, was established in 1999 to ensure insurers retain, and do their best to search, those Employers’ Liability policy records that exist. While the code has led to some improvements, there are still too many people who are left without help. The Government has been working hard across Government departments and with the insurance industry on this matter. We havemade it clear to the industry that we think there is room for improvement and that the industry must do all it can to make this happen. The industry has responded positively to this challenge and the Government is currently exploring with them a number of options for improving the situation. One possibility is the introduction of an Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, which would build and maintain a database of all current and future Employers’ Liability policies and those historic policies that have been identified. A Tracing Office along these lines would be a significant benefit to many thousands of people, helping them to trace policies and receive compensation in the future.
Work with the Association of British Insurers on the possibility of a Tracing Office, and other proposals, continues and the Government hopes to be able to say more following the Summer Recess.
The Daily Mirror’s campaign also calls for the establishment of a National Centre for Asbestos-Related Disease to advance medical research in this area. The Government believes a powerful case has been made and, as Jack Straw made clear on 21 July 2009, is currently considering proposals to make the UK a global leader in research for the alleviation, prevention and cure of asbestos-related diseases. This work is on-going.
Finally, the campaign raises concerns about the level of resourcing in the Health and Safety Executive to meet targets for inspecting asbestos removal work and calls for a public register of all asbestos surveys carried out on public buildings. The Health and Safety Executive has recruited the number of inspectors agreed in ministerial targets set at the last Spending Review. However, the primary duty to manage risk rests with the duty-holder of the premises. Inspection is an intervention for checking and enforcing duty-holders to manage their responsibilities, and is not a replacement for them.
Since 2004, there has been a legal duty on those in control of buildings to manage asbestos, which the Health and Safety Executive believes is sufficient provided there is compliance. It requires duty-holders, those with maintenance and repair responsibilities for non-domestic premises, to take reasonable steps to identify the location and condition of asbestos-containing materials. The duty-holder must then use this information to make a written record and management plan to ensure that the risks of exposure to asbestos are properly managed. It is also a requirement of the legislation that this information is made available to anyone liable to disturb it, such as contractors or maintenance workers.
The meaning of ‘public buildings’, to which the Daily Mirror campaign refers, has been clarified as ‘non-domestic buildings’. Such a register would therefore cover all buildings to which the ‘duty to manage’ regulations apply, and compliance with these duties achieves the objectives of the campaign. A national register for public buildings would be costly to administer, problematic to accurately maintain and have little or no effect in reducing the health risks associated with asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive has been successful in increasing levels of awareness through targeted media campaigns, such as the recent ‘Hidden Killer’ campaign and this approach, in conjunction with a robust enforcement strategy, is the best way of reducing the number of deaths caused by exposure to asbestos.
The Health and Safety Executive is also responsible for the Asbestos Licensing Permissioning Regime. This is the primary tool for regulatory control of asbestos removal contractors carrying out high risk asbestos removal work. The work of licensed contractors is monitored, including by inspection, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2006 and any conditions set out in the particular licence.
“We urge the Prime Minister to work towards implementing the five campaign demands. These are: A £10 million National Centre for Asbestos Related Disease to find better treatment, alleviate suffering and find a cure for mesothelioma. Compensation reinstated for victims of “pleural plaques” – scars on lungs caused by asbestos – after it was scrapped two years ago. Fair and equal compensation for asbestos disease sufferers who can’t trace the insurers of the bosses who exposed them, through a new Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau paid for by the insurance industry. A public register of all asbestos surveys carried out on public buildings. The Health and Safety Executive must be given the resources to meet its own targets for inspecting asbestos removal work.”"
Read the Government’s response
On 17 October 2007, the Law Lords unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal decision that the existence of pleural plaques does not constitute actionable or compensatable damage. The Court of Appeal decision marked the end of a period during which it was possible for damages to be awarded for negligent exposure to asbestos, which had led to the presence of pleural plaques. In light of representations made by individuals and organisations who strongly disagreed with the Law Lords’ decision, the Government published a consultation into the issue on 9 July 2008, seeking views on the most appropriate means of responding to the House of Lords decision on pleural plaques.
In total, the Government received 224 responses to its consultation paper, as well as reports on the medical evidence on pleural plaques prepared for the Chief Medical Officer for England and Wales and by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. As Jack Straw indicated in the House of Commons on 21 July 2009, the Government will give further consideration to the issue of compensation for pleural plaques before publishing a final response.
The Daily Mirror’s campaign also calls for the establishment of an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau, which would act as a fund of last resort for claimants with mesothelioma who are unable to trace insurers. This would operate on a comparable basis to the Motor Insurance Bureau, where there is a similar captive insurance liability market, which covers accidents involving uninsured drivers. The Government appreciates that there are strong views in favour of an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau and is looking at this matter closely. While the Government does want to ensure fairness to individuals who cannot trace their insurer, it is conscious that there are complexities associated with an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau that would require insurers to take on a cost that they did not have an opportunity to reflect in their business models. The Government is looking closely at the arguments for and against an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau, in the context of the wider work on tracing.
The Government understands the situation facing those individuals who struggle to trace a relevant insurance policy. While the vast majority of individuals, around 98 per cent, are able to find an employer or insurer to claim against, this does not in any way reduce the distress and difficulty faced by those who cannot. The Government also fully accepts that these individuals are disproportionately likely to be suffering from diseases such as mesothelioma and that, on top of a terrible disease, they face a lack of compensation. This is why the Government set up the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and 2008 Mesothelioma Scheme.
It is, of course, also important that we continue to look for ways of improving tracing levels. The Employers’ Liability Code of Practice, a voluntary code operated by the insurance industry, was established in 1999 to ensure insurers retain, and do their best to search, those Employers’ Liability policy records that exist. While the code has led to some improvements, there are still too many people who are left without help. The Government has been working hard across Government departments and with the insurance industry on this matter. We havemade it clear to the industry that we think there is room for improvement and that the industry must do all it can to make this happen. The industry has responded positively to this challenge and the Government is currently exploring with them a number of options for improving the situation. One possibility is the introduction of an Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, which would build and maintain a database of all current and future Employers’ Liability policies and those historic policies that have been identified. A Tracing Office along these lines would be a significant benefit to many thousands of people, helping them to trace policies and receive compensation in the future.
Work with the Association of British Insurers on the possibility of a Tracing Office, and other proposals, continues and the Government hopes to be able to say more following the Summer Recess.
The Daily Mirror’s campaign also calls for the establishment of a National Centre for Asbestos-Related Disease to advance medical research in this area. The Government believes a powerful case has been made and, as Jack Straw made clear on 21 July 2009, is currently considering proposals to make the UK a global leader in research for the alleviation, prevention and cure of asbestos-related diseases. This work is on-going.
Finally, the campaign raises concerns about the level of resourcing in the Health and Safety Executive to meet targets for inspecting asbestos removal work and calls for a public register of all asbestos surveys carried out on public buildings. The Health and Safety Executive has recruited the number of inspectors agreed in ministerial targets set at the last Spending Review. However, the primary duty to manage risk rests with the duty-holder of the premises. Inspection is an intervention for checking and enforcing duty-holders to manage their responsibilities, and is not a replacement for them.
Since 2004, there has been a legal duty on those in control of buildings to manage asbestos, which the Health and Safety Executive believes is sufficient provided there is compliance. It requires duty-holders, those with maintenance and repair responsibilities for non-domestic premises, to take reasonable steps to identify the location and condition of asbestos-containing materials. The duty-holder must then use this information to make a written record and management plan to ensure that the risks of exposure to asbestos are properly managed. It is also a requirement of the legislation that this information is made available to anyone liable to disturb it, such as contractors or maintenance workers.
The meaning of ‘public buildings’, to which the Daily Mirror campaign refers, has been clarified as ‘non-domestic buildings’. Such a register would therefore cover all buildings to which the ‘duty to manage’ regulations apply, and compliance with these duties achieves the objectives of the campaign. A national register for public buildings would be costly to administer, problematic to accurately maintain and have little or no effect in reducing the health risks associated with asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive has been successful in increasing levels of awareness through targeted media campaigns, such as the recent ‘Hidden Killer’ campaign and this approach, in conjunction with a robust enforcement strategy, is the best way of reducing the number of deaths caused by exposure to asbestos.
The Health and Safety Executive is also responsible for the Asbestos Licensing Permissioning Regime. This is the primary tool for regulatory control of asbestos removal contractors carrying out high risk asbestos removal work. The work of licensed contractors is monitored, including by inspection, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2006 and any conditions set out in the particular licence.
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Court Of Appeal
Trigger Litigation Issue
The next round in the Trigger litigation Issue will be heard in the Court Of Appeal for three weeks in November 2009. As soon as we have the exact date we will post it on the site and also keep it updated.
For those of you not familiar with the issue please look on previous postings in November 2008 onwards, you can also look on our website http://www.bobtolleyfund.co.uk/.
The next round in the Trigger litigation Issue will be heard in the Court Of Appeal for three weeks in November 2009. As soon as we have the exact date we will post it on the site and also keep it updated.
For those of you not familiar with the issue please look on previous postings in November 2008 onwards, you can also look on our website http://www.bobtolleyfund.co.uk/.
Breathe Photography Exhibition Australia
Breathing is the basis of life.
It is a tragic fact that thousands of men & women die each year from diseases caused by inhaling asbestos fibres
In a cruel irony, the very strength and resilience of the asbestos fibre, once hailed as a “wonder fibre”, is the undoing of many who breathe it in. Once it has embedded in a person’s lung, the tiny fibre may give rise to cancers and lung disease which eventually rob the patient of the very capacity to draw breath.
Many more healthy, breathing men & women will fall victim to fibres that already lodge like tiny time bombs in their lungs. These are the workers, renovators and random exposed who will become disease statistics as death rates peak in about 2025.
Asbestos leaves a cruel legacy. In the dread that it engenders, in the pain and suffering it brings to so many families, in arrested dreams, in the sheer contemplation of what may lie ahead, it knocks us breathless.
One particularly poignant legacy is the widow. She faces her loss daily. How does she cope? What strengths does she draw from her husband’s memory? What encapsulates her resolve to live a meaningful and purposeful life?
This exhibition, simply titled Breathe, is dedicated to those widows united by that loss, and to their men who have gone.
Theirs is a story about strength, resilience and the will to breathe.
http://www.chrisirelandphotography.com/
It is a tragic fact that thousands of men & women die each year from diseases caused by inhaling asbestos fibres
In a cruel irony, the very strength and resilience of the asbestos fibre, once hailed as a “wonder fibre”, is the undoing of many who breathe it in. Once it has embedded in a person’s lung, the tiny fibre may give rise to cancers and lung disease which eventually rob the patient of the very capacity to draw breath.
Many more healthy, breathing men & women will fall victim to fibres that already lodge like tiny time bombs in their lungs. These are the workers, renovators and random exposed who will become disease statistics as death rates peak in about 2025.
Asbestos leaves a cruel legacy. In the dread that it engenders, in the pain and suffering it brings to so many families, in arrested dreams, in the sheer contemplation of what may lie ahead, it knocks us breathless.
One particularly poignant legacy is the widow. She faces her loss daily. How does she cope? What strengths does she draw from her husband’s memory? What encapsulates her resolve to live a meaningful and purposeful life?
This exhibition, simply titled Breathe, is dedicated to those widows united by that loss, and to their men who have gone.
Theirs is a story about strength, resilience and the will to breathe.
http://www.chrisirelandphotography.com/
Monday, 14 September 2009
British Lung Foundation Study
BLF funded study finds new test for asbestos cancer
A study funded by the British Lung Foundation has resulted in a more sensitive test for the asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma being developed by scientists. The test developed by a team at Oxford University looks at levels of a protein closely linked to the cancer in fluid around the lungs.
Currently, doctors carry out pleural fluid cytology - a lab test which looks for cancerous cells. However the Oxford research team, say that this is not a very sensitive test.
In this study they tested over 200 pleural fluid samples from patients who had been referred to a specialist respiratory clinic. They then looked at levels of the protein meothelin which is released in high quantities in the pleural fluid of most patients with mesothelioma.
It was found that the levels of the protein were almost six times higher in patients with the cancer than in those with secondary cancers, and 10 times greater than those with benign conditions. Professor Stephen Spiro, Deputy Chairman of the British Lung Foundation said:
“This study is an important step forward, as it could lead to earlier diagnosis and better treatment of mesothelioma which is vital as currently most patients diagnosed with this disease live less than 12 months.
“This simple and non invasive test could help improve the survival time of those diagnosed with mesothelioma and give hope to patients and their families affected by this cruel cancer”.
The study has been published today in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
A study funded by the British Lung Foundation has resulted in a more sensitive test for the asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma being developed by scientists. The test developed by a team at Oxford University looks at levels of a protein closely linked to the cancer in fluid around the lungs.
Currently, doctors carry out pleural fluid cytology - a lab test which looks for cancerous cells. However the Oxford research team, say that this is not a very sensitive test.
In this study they tested over 200 pleural fluid samples from patients who had been referred to a specialist respiratory clinic. They then looked at levels of the protein meothelin which is released in high quantities in the pleural fluid of most patients with mesothelioma.
It was found that the levels of the protein were almost six times higher in patients with the cancer than in those with secondary cancers, and 10 times greater than those with benign conditions. Professor Stephen Spiro, Deputy Chairman of the British Lung Foundation said:
“This study is an important step forward, as it could lead to earlier diagnosis and better treatment of mesothelioma which is vital as currently most patients diagnosed with this disease live less than 12 months.
“This simple and non invasive test could help improve the survival time of those diagnosed with mesothelioma and give hope to patients and their families affected by this cruel cancer”.
The study has been published today in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Mesothelioma Clinical Trial Recruiting Participants
A clinical trial for patients with malignant mesothelioma is currently recruiting participants. The trial is sponsored by Papworth Hospital in the UK, although it is open to any mesothelioma patient that meets the criteria. This study will evaluate video-assisted surgery to see how well it works compared with talc pleurodesis in treating patients with malignant mesothelioma.
According to information on ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, this is a randomized phase III trial. Video-assisted surgery removes part of the tissue layer covering the inside of the chest cavity, which researchers think may be effective in treating pleural effusion and cause less damage to normal tissue. Talc pleurodesis may keep fluid from building up in the chest cavity. It is not known at this time which thereapy is more effective.
The primary objective of this study, as stated in the project outline, is to compare the effectiveness of these two modes of treatment in terms of 1-year survival, in patients with suspected or proven malignant mesothelioma.
Secondary goals of the study include comparing the control of pleural effusion, comparing procedure-related complications, comparing symptoms and quality of life of these patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, comparing the length of hospital stay, the exercise tolerance level of these patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, and to determine the cost to the health service, in terms of resources used for procedures, hospital bed usage and cost of primary and secondary care over 12 months.
Recruiting locations in the UK are Basildon University Hospital, Gelnfield Hospital (Leicester), Guy’s Hospital (London), Papworth Hospital (Cambridge) and Royal Hallamshire Hospital (Sheffield). Principal investigator for the study is Robert Winter, MD, Papworth Hospital.
This study is identified in the U.S. at clinicaltrials.gov by ID number NCT00821860.
For contact and recruiting information, visit the Clinical Trials information page at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00821860.
According to information on ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, this is a randomized phase III trial. Video-assisted surgery removes part of the tissue layer covering the inside of the chest cavity, which researchers think may be effective in treating pleural effusion and cause less damage to normal tissue. Talc pleurodesis may keep fluid from building up in the chest cavity. It is not known at this time which thereapy is more effective.
The primary objective of this study, as stated in the project outline, is to compare the effectiveness of these two modes of treatment in terms of 1-year survival, in patients with suspected or proven malignant mesothelioma.
Secondary goals of the study include comparing the control of pleural effusion, comparing procedure-related complications, comparing symptoms and quality of life of these patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, comparing the length of hospital stay, the exercise tolerance level of these patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, and to determine the cost to the health service, in terms of resources used for procedures, hospital bed usage and cost of primary and secondary care over 12 months.
Recruiting locations in the UK are Basildon University Hospital, Gelnfield Hospital (Leicester), Guy’s Hospital (London), Papworth Hospital (Cambridge) and Royal Hallamshire Hospital (Sheffield). Principal investigator for the study is Robert Winter, MD, Papworth Hospital.
This study is identified in the U.S. at clinicaltrials.gov by ID number NCT00821860.
For contact and recruiting information, visit the Clinical Trials information page at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00821860.
James Hardie Executives Fined In Asbestos Fund Case
James Hardie Executives Handed Penalties In Asbestos Compensation Fund Case
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) reported this week that the New South Wales Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that it will impose penalties against seven former directors and three executives of James Hardie Industries Limited. James Hardie is a manufacturer of Fiber Cement Siding and Backerboard. The court said the former Australian listed entity (JHIL) breached the Corporations Act in 2001 when making statements about the adequacy of asbestos compensation funding. The court also ruled James Hardie Industries NV (JHINV, based in the Netherlands) breached its continuous disclosure obligation in 2003.
James Hardie was one of Australia’s largest manufacturers of asbestos building products, and was alleged to have known the dangers of asbestos for decades.
The current proceedings came about as a result of ASIC’s investigation of matters identified by the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation. James Hardie established the foundation, which was intended to compensate families who lost loved ones to asbestos disease, in 2001. The inquiry into the MRCF was established in 2004, and the commission found that James Hardie industries deliberately underfunded the victims’ compensation fund
According to a report by Nonee Walsh of ABC News, who has been following the story since 2003, James Hardie has spent about $25 million so far fighting the ASIC’s case, while asbestos victims and their families have been simultaneously negotiating for new funding for the foundation. Payments to the new asbestos compensation foundation are currently suspended.
Walsh also noted that Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos disease in the world, including asbestos-caused lung cancer, mesothelioma. In 2003, when the sale of all asbestos products was finally banned in Australia, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission went on record as saying there is no known safe level of asbestos exposure.
The only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure, and there is currently no known cure. Mesothelioma most often affects the lining of the chest cavity and lungs, but also may affect the lining of the abdomen or, more rarely, the heart. Asbestos exposure also causes a variety of other diseases, including asbestos, a severe scarring of the lungs.
It is estimated that the levels of asbestos disease will not peak in Australia until 2020, when it is expected that there will be 13,000 cases of mesothelioma and up to 40,000 cases of other asbestos-related lung cancer and disease.
The New South Wales Supreme Court imposed financial penalties totaling $750,000, and said the company directors and executives named in the case will be barred from serving other boards of directors for between 5 and 15 years.
According to the ASIC, the James Hardie decision underlines the responsibility of companies to assess and check the veracity of statements make to the market. ASIC Chairman Tony D’Aloisio said, “The decision is another important step in improving corporate governance in Australia and that improvement will add confidence to the integrity of our markets.”
The matter will return to the Court on August 27, at which time the Court will make orders reflecting the penalties. The defendants will then have 28 days to appeal the findings.
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) reported this week that the New South Wales Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that it will impose penalties against seven former directors and three executives of James Hardie Industries Limited. James Hardie is a manufacturer of Fiber Cement Siding and Backerboard. The court said the former Australian listed entity (JHIL) breached the Corporations Act in 2001 when making statements about the adequacy of asbestos compensation funding. The court also ruled James Hardie Industries NV (JHINV, based in the Netherlands) breached its continuous disclosure obligation in 2003.
James Hardie was one of Australia’s largest manufacturers of asbestos building products, and was alleged to have known the dangers of asbestos for decades.
The current proceedings came about as a result of ASIC’s investigation of matters identified by the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation. James Hardie established the foundation, which was intended to compensate families who lost loved ones to asbestos disease, in 2001. The inquiry into the MRCF was established in 2004, and the commission found that James Hardie industries deliberately underfunded the victims’ compensation fund
According to a report by Nonee Walsh of ABC News, who has been following the story since 2003, James Hardie has spent about $25 million so far fighting the ASIC’s case, while asbestos victims and their families have been simultaneously negotiating for new funding for the foundation. Payments to the new asbestos compensation foundation are currently suspended.
Walsh also noted that Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos disease in the world, including asbestos-caused lung cancer, mesothelioma. In 2003, when the sale of all asbestos products was finally banned in Australia, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission went on record as saying there is no known safe level of asbestos exposure.
The only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure, and there is currently no known cure. Mesothelioma most often affects the lining of the chest cavity and lungs, but also may affect the lining of the abdomen or, more rarely, the heart. Asbestos exposure also causes a variety of other diseases, including asbestos, a severe scarring of the lungs.
It is estimated that the levels of asbestos disease will not peak in Australia until 2020, when it is expected that there will be 13,000 cases of mesothelioma and up to 40,000 cases of other asbestos-related lung cancer and disease.
The New South Wales Supreme Court imposed financial penalties totaling $750,000, and said the company directors and executives named in the case will be barred from serving other boards of directors for between 5 and 15 years.
According to the ASIC, the James Hardie decision underlines the responsibility of companies to assess and check the veracity of statements make to the market. ASIC Chairman Tony D’Aloisio said, “The decision is another important step in improving corporate governance in Australia and that improvement will add confidence to the integrity of our markets.”
The matter will return to the Court on August 27, at which time the Court will make orders reflecting the penalties. The defendants will then have 28 days to appeal the findings.
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Government Response To Mesothelioma Petition
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to to ensure that all Mesothelioma patients get treatment they need in the UK and should not have to travel abroad. We would like to see Chemoembolization trialled in the UK and become a treatment that would be offered to Mesothelioma sufferers.
Details of Petition:
“Chemoembolization is a procedure that is most commonly used in the UK for liver cancer. Professor Thomas Vogl, Frankfurt, Germany, has been studying its uses with Mesothelioma with some sucess One successes is Debbie Brewer who, aged 47 was told she had 6-9 months to live, in Nov 2006. She started to take Mistletoe in April 08 & after meetin the prof started treatment May 08 & in June 08 for a 2nd treatment & was told the tumour had shrunk 10%. After 5 treatments it has, so far shrunk 53% & she has been given a partial remission diagnosis & has been told the tumour MAY NOT return. This treatment should be available in the UK as the treatments for Mesothelioma are limited to chemo, radiotherapy or major operation to remove the damaged lung. We are currently campaigning to get trials started in the UK *Chemoembolization involves passing a catheter through the femoral artery into the lung & targeting the tumour directly. *Mistletoe, A therapy used to boost the immune system & educate it to fight the tumour. It is administered via injection in the abdomen.”
Read the Government’s response
One of the recommendations of the LCAMAG was the development of a mesothelioma framework to provide the NHS with advice on how to deliver services for mesothelioma patients in order to improve standards of care to a uniformly high level across the country.
The Government's Reponse
The National Mesothelioma Framework was launched on 27 February 2008. The framework takes on board comments from a public consultation and includes advice on the configuration of services, raising awareness of mesothelioma and the clinical management of the condition. The Government hopes that the adoption of the framework’s recommendations by the NHS will make a substantial difference to mesothelioma patients and their families. Details of the framework can be viewed on the Department of Health website at www.dh.gov.uk.
Chemoembolisation is currently available for the treatment of liver cancer. However, the risks and benefits of using chemoembolisation to treat patients with mesothelioma are not yet known. The Department of Health is not aware of any trials of chemoembolisation for patients with mesothelioma that are currently underway in the UK.
The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), an independent body funded by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills via the Office of Science and Innovation. The MRC is dedicated to improving human health through the best scientific research. While funds are not generally earmarked for particular topics, the MRC always welcomes high quality applications for funding to support research into any aspect of human health. Awards are made according to scientific quality and importance to human health and are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Further details are available on the MRC’s website at: www.mrc.ac.uk.
The Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) programme also supports high quality research of relevance and in areas of high priority to patients and the NHS.
Neither the NIHR nor the MRC ring fence funds for expenditure on particular topics: research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available. Both organisations welcome applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.
It is for clinicians, using their expert judgement, to decide on the most effective treatment for patients based on their individual circumstances. As Primary Care Trusts are responsible for commissioning services to meet the healthcare needs of their local populations, it is for them to decide whether to fund any proposed treatment taking into account any available evidence of the effectiveness of that treatment.
Details of Petition:
“Chemoembolization is a procedure that is most commonly used in the UK for liver cancer. Professor Thomas Vogl, Frankfurt, Germany, has been studying its uses with Mesothelioma with some sucess One successes is Debbie Brewer who, aged 47 was told she had 6-9 months to live, in Nov 2006. She started to take Mistletoe in April 08 & after meetin the prof started treatment May 08 & in June 08 for a 2nd treatment & was told the tumour had shrunk 10%. After 5 treatments it has, so far shrunk 53% & she has been given a partial remission diagnosis & has been told the tumour MAY NOT return. This treatment should be available in the UK as the treatments for Mesothelioma are limited to chemo, radiotherapy or major operation to remove the damaged lung. We are currently campaigning to get trials started in the UK *Chemoembolization involves passing a catheter through the femoral artery into the lung & targeting the tumour directly. *Mistletoe, A therapy used to boost the immune system & educate it to fight the tumour. It is administered via injection in the abdomen.”
Read the Government’s response
One of the recommendations of the LCAMAG was the development of a mesothelioma framework to provide the NHS with advice on how to deliver services for mesothelioma patients in order to improve standards of care to a uniformly high level across the country.
The Government's Reponse
The National Mesothelioma Framework was launched on 27 February 2008. The framework takes on board comments from a public consultation and includes advice on the configuration of services, raising awareness of mesothelioma and the clinical management of the condition. The Government hopes that the adoption of the framework’s recommendations by the NHS will make a substantial difference to mesothelioma patients and their families. Details of the framework can be viewed on the Department of Health website at www.dh.gov.uk.
Chemoembolisation is currently available for the treatment of liver cancer. However, the risks and benefits of using chemoembolisation to treat patients with mesothelioma are not yet known. The Department of Health is not aware of any trials of chemoembolisation for patients with mesothelioma that are currently underway in the UK.
The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), an independent body funded by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills via the Office of Science and Innovation. The MRC is dedicated to improving human health through the best scientific research. While funds are not generally earmarked for particular topics, the MRC always welcomes high quality applications for funding to support research into any aspect of human health. Awards are made according to scientific quality and importance to human health and are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Further details are available on the MRC’s website at: www.mrc.ac.uk.
The Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) programme also supports high quality research of relevance and in areas of high priority to patients and the NHS.
Neither the NIHR nor the MRC ring fence funds for expenditure on particular topics: research proposals in all areas compete for the funding available. Both organisations welcome applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.
It is for clinicians, using their expert judgement, to decide on the most effective treatment for patients based on their individual circumstances. As Primary Care Trusts are responsible for commissioning services to meet the healthcare needs of their local populations, it is for them to decide whether to fund any proposed treatment taking into account any available evidence of the effectiveness of that treatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
