Sunak calls for targeted national screening programme for prostate cancer
Former prime minister Rishi Sunak has urged Sir Keir Starmer to set up a national screening programme for those at high risk of prostate cancer.
Mr Sunak, who was recently made a Prostate Cancer Research ambassador, said thousands of lives could be saved as a result of targeted measures.
Black men and those with a family history of prostate cancer are statistically more at risk of the disease, the charity said.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has previously said screenings could have a 'huge part to play in bridging health inequalities' and the UK National Screening Committee is 'examining the case for population screening'.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Sunak said: 'Prostate cancer is now our country's most common cancer and yet there is no national screening programme.
'We made progress towards this in government but yet there is more to do, which is why I'm delighted to have joined Prostate Cancer Research, the charity, as an ambassador.
'I'm grateful to the Health Secretary for his engagement thus far, and could I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that we do have a targeted national screening programme for the most-at-risk groups of prostate cancer?
'So that we can not only save the NHS money, make progress towards the Government's early diagnosis targets, but most crucially, save thousands of lives.'
The Prime Minister replied: 'Can I thank him for using his authority and reputation to support this vital cause which will make a material difference, and I look forward to working with him on it.
'We do share a commitment to detecting prostate cancer earlier and treating it faster – we must do that.
'Our national cancer plan will improve the way we treat cancer right across the country, and I'll make sure he is fully informed of the steps that we're taking, and we'll work with him.'
Mr Sunak said he was 'honoured' to have been made an ambassador and he hopes his work will 'prevent further needless deaths'.
Speaking earlier this week, he added: 'Men tend to ignore pain hoping it'll go away rather than going to see the GP, and that's a part of the reason why prostate cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed cancer in males in the UK.
'We can do something about that. It is clear from a trial that I funded when I was in office, that early detection saves lives.
'Catching the cancer early drastically improved survival rates, however that survival rate drops by half if it's caught late. A targeted national screening programme will help save many lives.'
Last Thursday, Mr Sunak met workers at the laboratories of British cancer diagnostics company Oxford BioDynamics, where they are working on a new blood test.
The EpiSwitch PSE test can detect prostate cancer with 94% accuracy, which is a 'significant improvement' on the most commonly used PSA test, according to Prostate Cancer Research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From celebrating Juneteenth to the erasure of Black history: Charles M. Blow on America today
The political analyst and former New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow shares his thoughts about our nation's newest federal holiday, Juneteenth: Last month I visited Emancipation Park in Houston, a park established in 1872 by the formerly enslaved as a space to celebrate Juneteenth, the day in 1865 that the news of emancipation was proclaimed in Galveston, Texas. Ramon Manning, the board chair of the park's conservancy, told me that his corporate sponsors had grown skittish about supporting Juneteenth-related activities and anything with words like "culture," "heritage" or "Black History" – words nearly impossible to omit in this park. This, for Manning, is a bit of a whiplash. Four years ago, in the wake of the massive protests following the killing of George Floyd, and in a Senate riven by partisanship, the bill to make Juneteenth a national holiday passed unanimously. Biden signs bill making Juneteenth a federal holidayWhat is Juneteenth? Learn the history behind the federal holiday's origin and name A year before that, in the closing months of his reelection bid, Donald Trump himself had proposed making it a national holiday in his so-called Platinum Plan for Black America. In fact, in 2019, Trump's statement commemorating Juneteenth ended by saying that on Juneteenth, "... we pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of African Americans." Now, the mood of the country has shifted. Pluralism and racial justice have been demoted in the zeitgeist, as Trump has returned to office on a mission to purge the government, and much of society, of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. Trump administration threatens public schools' federal funding over DEI initiativesTrump's DEI undoing undermines hard-won accommodations for disabled peopleCompanies could face Trump repercussions over DEI This has spurred an erasure of Black history and Black symbols in some quarters, a phenomenon that I call "The Great Blackout" – from an executive order condemning the direction of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, to the National Park Service removing - but being forced to restore - Harriet Tubman's image and quote to a page about the Underground Railroad. There are, unfortunately, countless examples. That chill is having a dampening effect on the upcoming observation of Juneteenth, far beyond Emancipation Park, as multiple cities have cancelled Juneteenth celebrations altogether. 2025 Indianapolis Juneteenth parade canceled San Luis Obispo Juneteenth event canceled In this sad new reality, America's youngest national holiday is now caught in the crossfire of America's raging culture wars. For more info: Charles M. Blow on Instagram Story produced by Robbyn McFadden. Editor: Chad Cardin. See also: Passage: The story of Juneteenth ("Sunday Morning")Decades after a mob destroyed her house, Opal Lee is returning home ("Sunday Morning") Dad says son "may never be the same" after alleged hazing Nature: Mating grebes From celebrating Juneteenth to the erasure of Black history: Charles M. Blow on America today
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gerry Adams's lawyer to pursue chatbots for libel
The high-profile media lawyer who represented Gerry Adams in his libel trial against the BBC is now preparing to sue the world's most powerful AI chatbots for defamation. As one of the most prominent libel lawyers in the UK, Paul Tweed said that artificial intelligence was the 'new battleground' in trying to prevent misinformation about his clients from being spread online. Mr Tweed is turning his attention to tech after he recently helped the former Sinn Fein leader secure a €100,000 (£84,000) payout over a BBC documentary that falsely claimed he sanctioned the murder of a British spy. The Belfast-based solicitor said he was already building a test case against Meta that could trigger a flurry of similar lawsuits, as he claims to have exposed falsehoods shared by chatbots on Facebook and Instagram. It is not the first time tech giants have been sued for defamation over questionable responses spewed out by their chatbots. Robby Starbuck, the US activist known for targeting diversity schemes at major companies, has sued Meta for defamation alleging that its AI chatbot spread a number of false claims about him, including that he took part in the Capitol riots. A Norwegian man also filed a complaint against OpenAI after its ChatGPT software incorrectly stated that he had killed two of his sons and been jailed for 21 years. Mr Tweed, who has represented celebrities such as Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford and Jennifer Lopez, said: 'My pet subject is generative AI and the consequences of them repeating or regurgitating disinformation and misinformation.' He believes statements put out by AI chatbots fall outside the protections afforded to social media companies, which have traditionally seen them avoid liability for libel. If successful, Mr Tweed will expose social media companies that have previously argued they should not be responsible for claims made on their platforms because they are technology companies rather than traditional publishers. Mr Tweed said: 'I've been liaising with a number of well-known legal professors on both sides of the Atlantic and they agree that there's a very strong argument that generative AI will fall outside the legislative protections.' The lawyer said that chatbots are actually creating new content, meaning they should be considered publishers. He said that the decision by many tech giants to move their headquarters to Ireland for lower tax rates had also opened them up to being sued in Dublin's high courts, where libel cases are typically decided by a jury. This setup is often seen as more favourable to claimants, which Mr Tweed himself says has fuelled a wave of 'libel tourism' in Ireland. He also said Dublin's high courts are attractive as a lower price option compared to London, where he said the costs of filing libel claims are 'eye-watering'. He said: 'I think it's absurd now, the level of costs that are being claimed. The libel courts in London are becoming very, very expensive and highly risky now. The moment you issue your claim form, the costs go into the stratosphere. 'It's not in anyone's interest for people to be deprived of access to justice. It will get to the point where nobody sues for libel unless you're a billionaire.' Meta was contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory.
