Pensioner Richard Eckley rose at 6.30am and worked on the

family farm until the sun went down, as he has done practically

every day of his adult life.

But the  grandfather, 69, could only do so because he is

one of the lucky few to have won a funding battle for the drug

Sutent that keeps his advanced kidney cancer at bay.

Yesterday,THU the shocked farmer took time out from preparing

his cattle for market to blast a decision that will deny other

patients the same  drug that has allowed him vital extra

time with his family.

Mr Eckley joined the outcry caused by the decision by the

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) not approve

NHS funding for four drugs used to prolong the life of patients

with advanced forms of kidney cancer.

He said: “It’s absolutely horrifying. It’s unbelievable that,

in 2008, desperately ill people are being denied treatment that

can help them. It makes me very, very angry.”

The Herefordshire farmer started paying about £4,000 a month

for Sutent out of his own pocket in January this year after

doctors at Cheltenham General Hospital told him it could help

him live longer.

Paying for the drugs also made him liable to pay for the cost

of NHS treatment. But, two weeks ago, his local health chiefs

agreed to pay his bill in full after hearing medics describe

how he had made amazing progress.

Mr Eckley said his tumour has now virtually shrunk to nothing

and most days he is fit enough work from dawn until dusk on the

family’s 250-acre farm at Glasbury-on-Wye.

His solicitor has assured him Nice’s decision yesterday not

pay between £23,000 and £30,000 a year per patient for the

radical cancer drugs will not affect his case. However, his

family are angry on behalf of other sufferers.

His wife Barbara Eckley said: “Without Sutent, Richard would

be very ill and he could not cope with sitting around all day.

As far as he is concerned, if he can’t work, he may as well be

dead. Our hearts bleed for all those people out there who have

been given a death sentence today.

“It’s disgusting. It’s all wrong.

“The NHS can find the money to fund treatment for obese people

who could help themselves with diet and exercise, but they tell

cancer sufferers that these new drugs are too dear.”

The drugs Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib), Sutent

(sunitinib) and Torisel (temsirolimus) were found by Nice to

provide “significant gains” in survival rates.

But news that they will not be funded because they do not meet

Nice’s criteria for “cost-effectiveness” has caused uproar and

calls for the system to be changed.

More than 7,000 people are diagnosed with kidney cancer every

year, while 1,700 have incurable renal cell carcinoma that has

spread from the initial tumour.

Officially, Nice admits the drugs can prolong life by about

four or five months, but they are routinely denied to

patients.

In October 2007, Geraldine Frost, from Coleford, died at the

age of 44 after losing her fight to win Sutent from health

chiefs in Gloucestershire. Meanwhile, Jack Rosser, 56, is

currently fighting to get health bosses in South

Gloucestershire to pay for Sutent so he can have more time with

his baby daughter, Emma. He was diagnosed with cancer of the

kidney three days after she was born last July.

Former Yeovil Town Football Club captain Paul Smith, 58, was

one of the lucky ones to win his fight for the drug sorafenib

after doctors in Bristol said he was special case.

Patients can be prescribed interferon, but many cannot

tolerate it. Yesterday, Professor John Wagstaff, from the South

Wales Cancer Institute, said about 75 per cent of patients did

not gain any real benefit from the NHS-approved drug.

Broadcaster James Whale, 49, who was diagnosed with kidney

cancer in 2000, accused  Nice of being “barbaric” for

denying cancer patients the latest generation of drugs that are

available abroad.

But Professor Peter Littlejohns, clinical and public health

director at Nice, said although he could understand the concern

and distress caused by the decision, the NHS could not 

afford to fund all new treatments. Bringing the price down

would be the best way to make the drugs available on the NHS,

he said.

“The evidence has shown that, although these treatments are

clinically effective, they are not a cost-effective use of NHS

resources.

“If these treatments were provided on the NHS other patients

would lose out on treatments that are both clinically and cost

effective.”

The draft guidelines for England and Wales, which are subject

to appeal, recommend people already on the drugs should be able

continue their treatment.