Cancer patients don’t have time to wait

For a compassionate country, why is New Zealand so cruel to cancer sufferers (Weekend Herald, June 8)?

It’s bad enough they must wait even longer for the 13 drugs promised preelection, but it’s now been revealed the price differential from area to area in administering treatment is significant.

The two private providers interviewed presented a polished and impressive precis of their services, but when you’re bankrupting yourself to pay for drugs Pharmac doesn’t provide, is it ethical? We then have the case of Connor Coster, whose family is desperately exploring every medical avenue to save their precious child (NZ Herald, June 10).

Unless we’re battling cancer, we may not recognise the precious commodity these families don’t have is time. So, while the Government scrambles to find the promised funding, Dr Shane Reti’s “fiscal cliff” means nothing to cancer sufferers — who are on the precipice with little hope in sight.

Many New Zealanders would gladly give up their tax refunds to help their fellow Kiwis. The Government would be wise to stop prioritising potholes and listen to the people who elected them.

Mary Hearn, Glendowie.

Severe side effects

As a retired doctor who has gained great benefit in the past from anti-cancer drugs in the form of chemotherapy, I am aware of the gains to be made from such treatment.

But having researched the exorbitant costs of the proposed 13 new agents, many of which have very severe side effects for minimal gains in terms of lives saved, can we really afford them?

The Government/Pharmac will have to be very selective in choosing a very small number of the most effective tolerated agents, not the whole menu of 13.

Dr Ron Haydon, Stonefields.

Why I marched

Shane Jones suggested those who marched down Queen St on Saturday weren’t “garden variety Kiwis” but were part of a Greens sisterhood.

I refute that. I marched and took my young son with me, as my father had taken me in 1981, and later against nuclear testing in the Pacific (how nice it was to hear Herbs being played over the loudspeakers as we left Aotea Square).

New Zealanders, as David Seymour loves to say, are not going to stay silent on proposed legislation that is as flawed as the Fast-Track Approvals Bill, nor the negative environmental impacts should it become law.

There was a time when those shouting “Save the Planet” were considered the “lunatic fringe”. Now, that is mainstream thinking, backed by science.

Today’s crackpots are the likes of Jones, who thinks it is hilarious to joke about the extinction of critically endangered native species.

Matt Elliott, Birkdale.

Raining on parade

The 20,000 protesting over the FastTrack Approvals Bill will be first to complain, in 10 years, when they have cold showers due to a lack of power.

Renewable energies will not meet the demand needed to run our infrastructure. The Government is attempting to secure our energy future, at the same time building up a run-down economy.

Neil Hatfull, Warkworth.

Environmental survival

Monday’s editorial tries its very best to have a foot in both camps on protecting our environment.

It sees some need in Shane Jones’ call to reopen mining and even gives suggestions as to why this should be. Then there’s the comparison of countries making much of their natural resources, naming Australia and Norway as two with enough money from this endeavour to give much back to its people.

Unfortunately, both these countries have been major contributors to the warming of the planet for decades.

Do we have time to make heaps of money from our natural resources? Climate scientists say we do not.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres refers to coal, gas and oil corporations as the “godfathers of climate chaos” and calls for a worldwide ban on advertising their use.

We’re running out of time to play the arbiter, the one who considers both sides. Everything we do must now be for how we work together to survive.

Emma Mackintosh, Birkenhead.

Raising retirement age

When government Superannuation was introduced in 1974, the average life expectancy in New Zealand was 74.

Fifty years on, it is now 81. Consistent with that, the eligibility for Super was raised to 61 in 1992 and 65 in 2001.

Surely now the time has passed for eligibility to be raised to 67. This would be a savings of $4 billion for the Government, which would get rid of much of its current debt.

Most New Zealanders, once acquainted with the benefits, not just to the Government’s debt situation but extra productivity from the extra two years from New Zealand’s most experienced workforce, would realise it is a win-win situation in which all Kiwis benefit.

Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay.