Heather Roy's Diary

08-08-08
Eight is an auspicious number to the Chinese, as it signifies wealth. Thus, the Beijing Games begin today at 8:08am (Beijing time), on the eighth day of the eighth month of the eighth year. We wish our Olympians well and know they will compete to the best of their abilities. Hopefully Sport & Recreation Minister Clayton Cosgrove doesn't have a rush of blood to the head on their return - as did his predecessor Trevor Mallard after the last Olympics - and lambast them for not winning enough medals.

Herceptin
A drug used to combat the aggressive HER2 positive form of breast cancer, Herceptin is extremely expensive and many sufferers are unable to pay the cost of the drug themselves.

Throughout the world, 33 countries now fund the full 12-month course but in New Zealand debate has raged for several years over whether Government drug-buying agency PHARMAC should fund a nine-week Herceptin course, a 12-month course - or even at all.

Last year, breast cancer sufferers marched on Parliament to protest PHARMAC's nine-week decision. It was heart-wrenching to hear these women speak of their experiences, and of friends who died. I was struck by how many were younger than 40, most with small children to raise.

PHARMAC has maintained that the July 2006 decision to fund only the short course of treatment is based on science and is not financial. The decision, however, has drawn disagreement from many experts - Medsafe has refused to register the nine-week course due to a lack of clinical evidence, and cancer specialists appear to have been ignored.

Distressed at the 2006 decision, eight breast cancer patients - the 'Herceptin Heroines' - took PHARMAC to court. The High Court ruled that PHARMAC had not consulted sufficiently to assess the possible benefits of the 12-month course and instructed it to re-examine its decision. PHARMAC disappointingly announced this week that the original decision remains.
The real issue is wider than just the specialised breast cancer area. Many Kiwi patients are missing out on medications that would benefit them, and which are available in other countries.

For far too long, New Zealand has lagged far behind other OECD nations in pharmaceutical access. This is a feature of our economic performance - or lack thereof. One dollar in five of government spending goes to health - a one-fifth slice of our economic cake. Rather than quibbling about how that slice should be cut up - as the two big Parties do - we should grow the cake. One-fifth of a bigger economic cake would mean that many pharmaceuticals currently available to those who can afford to pay the full price could be subsidised by the government.

There is also the matter of priorities. Why could Labour find $25 million to save endangered snails - which weren't endangered - but can't find $25 million to save endangered women?

Lest We Forget - The Atomic Bomb

This week marks the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs - on Hiroshima on August 6 1945, and Nagasaki on August 9 1945. These explosions - in combination with the declaration of war on Japan by the Soviet Union - convinced Emperor Hirohito that further resistance was futile and, as such, he surrendered.

The surrender went against the Japanese code of honour and a 'die-hard' group - hoping to continue the war - attempted to seize the Emperor's palace in Kyoto. Fortunately they were driven back by palace guards.

On the day of the Hiroshima bomb, the Japanese government did not understand what had happened. Only President Truman's announcement 24 hours later, that an atomic bomb had been dropped on Japan, clarified the situation.

In 1945 few people knew uranium could be used as an explosive. Elite Japanese physicists would have known about uranium's properties, and US strategists thought those physicists would be consulted. Japanese physicists would have advised that it took time for uranium to be enriched, and that a second bomb would take much preparation. The second bomb was dropped to demonstrate that the US had a stock of bombs and that Japanese surrender was inevitable.

Although professing no expertise in these matters, I am reliably informed that uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element, and that most of it is found in the form of uranium 238. About one percent of uranium is the combustible uranium 235. To be turned into fuel or explosive uranium, it must be enriched. The degree varies, but the proportion of 235 must be increased to about four percent for fuel and about 75 percent for nuclear weapons.

By the 1960s, the dangers and the potential of nuclear technology were well known. It was feared then, as now, that nuclear weapons would become common - and, given the frequency of wars, enormous casualties would result. The existing nuclear powers agreed not to share their nuclear weapons technology. To encourage co-operation from 'would-be' nuclear powers, nuclear technology for power generation would be shared. These principles were put into international law in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. The treaty has been reasonably effective with only India, Pakistan and Israel refusing to sign.

But facilities to enrich uranium for fuel could be used to create weapons, a dilemma at the essence of the stand-off between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

New Zealand also has a dilemma with the Atomic Energy Agency. Signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty are not supposed to conduct nuclear business with non-members but the USA has recently made an exception for India and the IAEA is likely to pass the deal.

However, India faces another hurdle: acceptance by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is also necessary, and its 45 member states ban trade with nations, that - like India - have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Strangely, New Zealand is a Nuclear Suppliers Group member - but we do not supply uranium or have nuclear technology. New Zealand manages to get on many international committees, but this is a mixed blessing. This group votes today on whether or not to allow India to join the club.

Our Government has a strong anti-nuclear stand and promotes itself as a friend of India's. It's going to have to choose - Indian Prime Minister Singh has staked his reputation on passing the legislation needed to secure nuclear co-operation with the US. The Indian legislation was recently passed by a wafer thin majority.

I admire the Indian Prime Minister, but he has some unusual allies. His Communist Party allies opposed the co-operation with the US. No one opposed nuclear weapons per se. Mr Singh won't be pleased if New Zealand ankle taps his plans, and we would secure an own-goal if we antagonised one of the world's fastest growing economies. The world will be watching New Zealand's decision.