Although this has been mentioned before, I thought it worth giving it its own thread.
You'd have thought a campaign by Maurice Saatchi would have a head start in terms of advertising (given how he made his millions), but advertising only works if you can control the medium; and Saatchi certainly does not control Twitter and the Internet.
The campaign's Director of Communications is Dominic Nutt. He said on Twitter, under his own account, but clearly stating he is their Director of Communications: his Bio says:
His Tweet: The @SaatchiBill account later clarified that "many charities have expressed their support for the Bill consultation process". The Royal Medical Colleges have not said they support the Bill and Cancer Research UK (CRUK) are still considering their position.Director of Communications for Maurice Saatchi's Cancer Initiative. International media, comms and campaigns strategist. Campaigning for new cancer treatments.
I have challenged @SaatchiBill on this several times, asking whether Nutt Tweeted that with the authority of the campaign, but have yet to receive a substantive reply.
However, what matters is what the Bill is, what problem it is trying to solve and what it will allow. You can read what the campaign says on their website.
As I said before, it looks like a quack/charlatans' charter and solves a problem that they have not shown to exist.
here are two excellent article pointing out the issues:
The Saatchi Bill - Why?
Lord Saatchi Innovation Bill
The closing paragraph of the first article sums it up nicely:
The Bill, if enacted, could provide a possible defence to negligence claims where none was intended. One man's "innovation" is another's eccentric experimentation. A doctor whose actions were not supported by any reasonable body of his or her peers, could defeat a claim in negligence by pleading the innovation defence even where the weight he/she gave to the listed considerations was unreasonable and the decision he/she came to was also unreasonable. Provided the doctor can persuasively contend that he or she took into account the considerations set out in the Bill, made a decision through an open process, obtained consent and that the purpose of the treatment was to further the patient's best interests, then he/she has a defence to what would otherwise be considered unacceptable practice by all reasonable bodies of doctors (negligent). I don't believe that changing the law to provide that defence is desirable in the interests of patients or innovation.