ghp July 2015 pdf

ghp July 2015 | 7 New Research Shows High TTIP Support in Pharmaceutical Industry The results show that 2.4% of the Director General for trade in Europe one-to-one lobby meetings on TTIP were with big pharma in the preparatory phase of the negotiations, which ran from January 2012 to March 2013, but the sector’s share in lobby meet- ings jumped to 16.5% in the following period, April 2013 to February 2014. TTIP, or The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is currently a series of negotiations to create a trade deal between Europe and Ameri- ca. Some unions and non-profit organisations are critical of the proposed trade partnership, which would see a reduction of trade barriers between the US and Europe. During the crucial early negotiations, between Jan- uary 2012 and February 2014, the Director General for trade in Europe held 597 behind-closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss the negotiations, according to internal Commission files obtained by the survey ‘via access to information requests’. 528 of those meetings or 88% were with business lobbyists while only 53, which equates to 9%, were with public interest groups. Therefore, for every meeting with a trade union or consumer group, the Director General held ten with companies and industry federations. The main issue which many critics have with TTIP, particularly the protest group War on Want, believe that it could potentially jeopardise many public ser- vice, notably the NHS. War on Want have been par- ticularly vocal about their issues with the proposed deal: “TTIP is a threat to jobs, the environment and much more. It would open up public services to irreversible privatisation, and grant foreign investors a new right to sue governments for any loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions.” The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership could potentially harm the NHS because if it is not exempted from the partnership then there is the potential for the deal to lead to a privatisation of the public health service, similar to the system which is already in place in the US. It would also have an impact on other regulations such as food and drink, jobs and political policy. Details of the study are available here. Corporate Europe Observatory have published infographics which show that pharmaceuticals firms have increased their lobbying for the reforms drastically in 2013-2014. Evidence Shows New Technique Spares More Breast Cancer Suffers’ Nipples A new study published in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery proves that more breast cancer patients can qualify for a com- plex nipple-saving surgery which was previously unavailable to them. More breast cancer patients, particularly wom- en with large or sagging breasts who previously did not qualify for certain surgeries, are now candidates for the most complex nipple sparing breast reconstructive surgery using the body’s own tissue. Some sufferers were previously not able to have the surgery because due to the inability to elevate the nipple position after mastectomy. The findings in the peer-reviewed journal present compelling evidence that perforator flap reconstruction is of- ten better than implant reconstruction for women undergoing nipple sparing mastectomy. Surgeons at the Centre for Restorative Breast Surgery have now pioneered this stunning tech- nology that completely overcomes limitations, allowing more breast cancer patients to take advantage of the surgery. In the article, Dr DellaCroce, the chief author of the paper, and his team describe the pioneering technique that allows for a full breast lift or breast reduction after nipple sparing mastectomy. The technology that makes this possible means that women who were previously denied preservation of their nipple at the time of mastectomy no longer have to be excluded due to pre-existing poor nipple position or breast size. This advance- ment has the capacity to produce results that were previously unachievable with better breast appearance after mastectomy than before. Dr DellaCroce made it clear that this new proce- dure would drastically improve patient choice. ‘Implant reconstructions outweigh natural tissue reconstruction by nearly 5 times in the U.S., and some of that is because we don’t do a good enough job of informing women of what is pos- sible with living fat transplant procedures. It is essential that women know about this advance- ment before being talked into cutting away their nipples to tighten the extra skin over an implant-based procedure. No-one thought this was possible before now, and the importance of this discovery cannot be overstated. As nipple sparing mastectomy becomes more common, we can now offer the same extraordinary out- comes to women with drooping breasts or those with very large breasts. These women, who were previously denied nipple sparing mastectomy due to poor nipple position, can now have a full breast lift or reduction as a part of their overall surgery while still protecting their natural nipple. The key point that women must understand, is that this is impossible to accomplish with an implant reconstruction, but completely possible with a microsurgical flap reconstruction.’