Sarah Norcross, Director of the Progress Educational Trust (PET), said:
If a patient asks for an add-on treatment, and there is at best very limited evidence that the treatment works, then the doctor should consider whether – by providing it – they are giving the patient false hope.
Good medical care does not necessarily mean giving the patient what they want. Doctors are trained to have difficult conversations with patients, and need to be willing to say 'no' when there is scant evidence that a requested treatment will work. The fact that saying 'yes' might alleviate distress is not an adequate reason to do so, especially not without exploring whether a longer conversation with the patient – or multiple conversations, or counselling – could achieve the same result.
PET welcomes the HFEA's plans to review the 'traffic light' system for rating add-ons, as the current system is clearly not helping patients and professionals as much as it could. It is challenging to provide an oasis of clear, unbiased information amid the bombardment of well-funded and often misleading marketing turned up by 'Dr Google', but this is what the HFEA must do.
Information about add-ons on the HFEA website should be updated regularly, as this is such a fast-moving area, and clear explanations should be given of how particular assessment of an add-on was reached. There should also be coordination between information on the HFEA website and information available on other official channels, such the main NHS website and app (formerly known as 'NHS Choices'). The latter has had some success with search engine prominence, and is already a trusted resource.
