Medical tourism is safe?

A significant part of medical tourism and medical travel is driven by people who established and proven treatments in countries where the cost of treatment or operation is much smaller than in their country of origin. Within this market segment, the focus of patient safety is on top of hospital, clinic or doctor who is carrying out the treatment. The patient can be confident that the healthcare has the necessary knowledge and experience to perform the procedure? The question ... Not arise "this treatment really work?".

For proven treatments, hospitals, clinics and doctors (and medical tourism facilitators) can reassure the patient, providing proof of qualifications, accreditation; experience and so on ... and in some cases may be prepared to provide data on clinical outcomes. Unfortunately, this is all too often lack. Patients are often requested to have confidence in claims of health care provider, particularly in those countries that do not have national standards and data collection systems of comparative clinical results or independent review and analysis.  Even an international such as JCI Accreditation is not a guarantee of quality, nor indeed is an assessment of how good a hospital delivery of treatments are safe and successful.

Thus, in established areas of medical travel, such as cosmetic surgery, dental treatment and elective surgery there is still much work to be done to convince potential tourists medical treatment abroad is a safe choice (or at least as secure as within their country of origin.

A much larger question about security arises when we look at a different market segment. Patients traveling to treatment, because a treatment option is available on the outside, but not yet approved in their own country.

A controversial new treatment for multiple sclerosis is an exemplary case. Therapy of liberation is a procedure in which veins are opened in the neck with the aim of improving the blood circulation of the brain. Some doctors believe that liberation therapy for multiple sclerosis reduces the development of new MS attacks and in some cases can improve mobility but treatment is still being supported by an extensive clinical research and has not been approved for use by any major national health system. However, there have been successes. Ian Wilson, a patient of MS British concerns as therapy of liberation in Poland changed his life.

And also there were failures ....

Last month, the death of a patient Canadian who traveled to Costa Rica for therapy of release hit the headlines-death of MS patient fuels debate about the new treatment

"Doctors in Canada say that the death of Mr. Mostic is a cautionary tale for patients evaluate an unproven treatment and experimental. While the procedure still has to go through clinical trials in Canada, patients with multiple sclerosis has shelled out thousands of dollars for the procedure in countries like India and Poland. "

Much of the work of liberation therapy (for chronic insufficiency CCSVI-Venus Cerebo supraspinatus) has been conducted by Professor Paolo Zamboni in Italy. (Book research of Professor vista Zamboni on "Cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis" in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry). In a workshop about CCSVI in April this year, professor Zamboni defended this strategy

"… We are still at the stage where we need to understand if this type of treatment makes sense, with whom and when, etc. ... We can't be like Cowboys and try new things in skins of other people before he was experienced with security, so I insisted that, if the treatment has to be done, shall be conducted by a group that has a program with your neurologist appropriate and with a Tory "

There are 2.5 million patients worldwide, a proportion of those who would travel and spend a significant amount of money to relieve their symptoms or slow the progress of the disease.  The cost of treatment is about $ 10000 (7500 euros). Let's imagine that only 500 2.5 million sufferers of decide worth spending $ 10000 about the chance of cure. This is a market for $ 5 million. Suppose, 5000 (0.2% of patients) take the plunge ... that is a market of US $ 50 million.

Not surprisingly, several CCSVI providers have appeared throughout the world to capitalize on the potential demand. Here are some examples:

And medical tourism facilitators have not been slow to pursue revenue opportunities or:

In the world of stem cell treatment, we see a similar picture. But is it safe? Is ethical? It is driven purely by potential returns of money?

And above all, is in the interest of the patient?