Obese ex-policeman loses attempt to force NHS to pay for gastric bypass

Tom Condliff’s claim that his human rights were breached was dismissed by appeal court judges A 22-stone, “morbidly obese” ex-policeman has lost his latest attempt to force the NHS to pay for stomach surgery, despite his lawyers saying he might have less than a year to live. Tom Condliff, who is 62 and 1.8m (6ft 2in) tall, had claimed that North Staffordshire primary care trust (PCT) was denying him his human rights by refusing to fund the operation. But while judges at the appeal court in London on Wednesday expressed sympathy for Condliff’s “desperate” situation, they dismissed his attempt to overturn an April high court decision in the trust’s favour. Condliff, from Talke, Staffordshire, who has diabetes and other associated illnesses, had argued he needed a laparoscopic gastric bypass operation. Condliff’s lawyers had argued that the PCT had applied a funding policy that was legally flawed and breached his human rights. The appeal judges – Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lady Justice Hallett and Lord Justice Toulson – ruled that the funding policy did not breach human rights laws, although Toulson added: “Anyone in his situation would feel desperate.” Richard Clayton QC, for Condliff, had said his health was deteriorating and doctors feared he could have less than a year to live. He had a “severe needle phobia” and, over a number of years, insulin had not been delivered as effectively as it might have been. Condliff had developed a “gross appetite” and had started to “gorge himself” following a course of insulin. His weight had increased and his health problems multiplied. Clayton told a previous hearing: “He tried all other relevant, non-surgical interventions, including dietary and lifestyle and drug interventions, for his gain in weight, but was not successful.” The funding policy of the trust breached Condliff’s right to respect for his private and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Clayton argued. But David Lock QC, for the trust, said the case involved difficult decisions about healthcare funding priorities, and that the trust was entitled to make such decisions without taking into account non-clinical and social factors. Toulson said there was no doubt that Condliff’s state of health “is having a seriously adverse effect on his private and family life in the most basic ways, which without bariatric surgery will continue and is likely to become worse”. But there was no violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, however harsh that might seem to Condliff, said the judge. Clayton had in effect argued that there should be “positive discrimination”, and that “private life” matters should be taken into account, which were “not clinically significant when making decisions on the allocation of funds for medical treatment”, the judges said. Toulson said: “Mr Condliff’s witness statement shows that his condition has seriously compromised his independence and dignity of life in ways which have an inevitable impact on his relationship with his wife. It is unnecessary to go into more intimate details. His life expectancy has been severely reduced. Anyone in his situation would feel desperate. “The sad fact remains that the [trust], on proper medical advice, does not consider his condition to be exceptional for someone with his diabetes, obesity and co-morbidities. As a medical judgment that is not challenged. “In my judgment the [high court] judge was right in his reasoning and his conclusion that the adoption of the policy did not contravene the [human rights] convention. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.” The other judges agreed. Condliff was refused permission to take his case to the supreme court. NHS Human rights Health James Meikle guardian.co.uk

Posted by on July 27, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.