MCO 2.0 and cancer care


Don’t stop treatment: File photo of a patient undergoing a scan at a medical centre specialising in cancer care in France. — AFP

LAST year, the number of new cancer cases reported in Malaysia was 48,639 and the number of people living with cancer (for five years) was a whopping 128,018 (Global Cancer Observatory, World Health Organisation; 2020 figures). Central to this discussion is that there has been a reallocation of healthcare resources to cater for the influx of Covid-19-related hospitalisations.

During the first movement control order in March 2020, cancer-screening services were limited, cancer surgeries were postponed, and clinical visits and imaging appointments deferred. While these measures were taken to ensure that we had enough medical personnel, hospital beds and personal protective equipment to accommodate the high number of Covid-19 admissions, they resulted in widespread disruptions to cancer care service delivery in the nation. Cancer survivors were also torn between having to leave their homes to attend hospital appointments and postponing hospital visits to a later date due to fear of exposing themselves to the coronavirus.

Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access

Monthly Plan

RM 13.90/month

RM 11.12/month

Billed as RM 11.12 for the 1st month, RM 13.90 thereafter.

Best Value

Annual Plan

RM 12.33/month

RM 9.87/month

Billed as RM 118.40 for the 1st year, RM 148 thereafter.

Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel for breaking news alerts and key updates!

Next In Letters

Government risks missing NDC 3.0 targets amid delays, weak accountability and policy uncertainty
Seeking clarification for delay in tax refunds�
Public housing needs reform to prevent social decline
True measure of a nation
The AI wave: Why literacy, not panic, is the future of AI in education
Addiction is a health issue that demands care, not cages
Address the existing recruitment crisis first
Include the voices of those who feed the nation
Safety isn’t just about systems, it’s about people
Reconsider ‘too precise’ hill test requirement

Others Also Read