100,000 cancer patients to get whole genome sequencing

Is this a good use of tax payer's money? £100-162 million set aside to sequence the genomes of 100,000 cancer patients. Meanwhile the NHS struggles to provide timely cancer treatment for those suffering from the disease now. Drugs that prolong life are withheld from many cancer patients because they are deemed too expensive. Do you think this project will improve future cancer treatment at the cost of current treatments for patients?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Privacy campaigners are concern such a move could allow personal data to be passed on to private companies, such as insurance companies.

Dr Kat Arney from Cancer Research UK: ''There could be very big benefits for cancer patients in the future''

But ministers insist the project is for medical research alone.

Best guess says it will save insurance companies money by weeding out those likely to get it in future.

Hi snowy btw - hope all is well with you and yours

Hello methought. All is well with mine and me and hope all is well with you and yours as well.

Cancer treatment is free on the NHS. What that is worth to the patient depends on a timely diagnosis and prompt treatment. This doesn't always happen and some areas in the country have better care than others. If you happen to have extended health insurance through your work then you are one of the lucky ones because you can go private then. But if you don't it all depends on where you live, how much you push for diagnosis and treatment and whether it's even available.

Medical information can not be kept from an Insurance Company if that is a condition of their issuing (or renewing) a policy.

Medical information can not be kept from an Insurance Company if that is a condition of their issuing (or renewing) a policy.

If you already have insurance and get cancer the insurance company has to pay out according to the individuals policy.

'Utmost Good Faith'
Any insurance policy is essentially a contract. It is an agreement based on the notion of ‘utmost good faith’. How does this work in practice? Before agreeing to the terms of the insurance policy, the customer has a duty to disclose whatever information the insurance company bases its policy – and also of course the cost of the policy – on when it is issued.

If the insurance company believes that the policyholder has failed to disclose information that could affect the claim, or would have affected the cost of the insurance, they will usually try to reject the claim.


There has been increasing concern about the number of critical illness insurance claims that have been rejected by insurers who have used non-disclosure as a reason not to honour the claim. It is believed that two out of every ten critical illness claims are rejected because the policyholder failed to mention something on their application form.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No one knows if they are going to get cancer, OW. If you have an existing policy and develop a disease, I don't know how any insurance company can refuse payment.

This project isn't to find out what genes cause cancer so they can tell the insurance companies. At the moment, Next Gen sequencing is still too expensive to have everyone's genome sequenced just so the insurance companies can refuse to pay someone when they are ill.

Besides that most people are going to die of heart disease and stroke and diabetes because they are too fat before they get cancer. The government keeps banging on about everyone living longer yet they forget that we have an obesity epidemic in this country that is going cull most of them. It's not cancer that will suck the NHS dry, it's the obesity epidemic. Would insurance companies refuse to pay out on a policy just because you're too fat?

"Family of cancer victim refused life insurance payout because he didn't disclose PINS AND NEEDLES"

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

His family will appeal the decision and win though. Especially with high profile backing from the likes of Russell Brand and Stephen Fry. No insurance company wants to look like a twat because that is bad for business. The family will win.

The Daily Mail OW? Really? Anyway, their story is out in the public domain and Friends Life looks like a tool now and will lose business. They'll pay.

Hope you have a lovely Christmas and New Year. Take care.

Thank you for your good wishes, and Compliments of the Season to you also.

It may be interesting to follow the course of the unfortunate case reported by The Mail (and also The Telegraph and by Jon Snow on Channel 4 TV).

If matters like this get to Court it often comes down to which side's "Expert Witness" the Judge finds more convincing than the other one's.