ABDELBASET Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had a particularly aggressive form of prostate cancer but survived far longer than expected.
Last Wednesday marked 1000 days since his release from prison on compassionate grounds when medics said he would be unlikely to survive much more than three months. He was diagnosed with the disease in September 2008, by which time it had spread to his lymph nodes and spine. He received hormone therapy, a common treatment for prostate cancer, but one that can only delay further decline.
By July 3, 2009, Megrahi's doctors said the hormone treatment was no longer working. In a letter to Kenny MacAskill, Megrahi wrote: "I am terminally ill. There is no prospect of my recovery."
Professor Karol Sikora, one of several cancer experts who visited Megrahi in Greenock Prison, said he believed Megrahi had no more than three months to live.
However, the medical evidence was placed under considerable scrutiny by critics of the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. They contended he could live a good deal longer.
At the age of 56, Megrahi was much younger than an average patient diagnosed in their early-70s. And, once back in Tripoli, he had access to new, experimental drugs.
One of those drugs was the cutting-edge, life-prolonging prostate cancer drug abiraterone. Costing up to £3000 a month, there was controversy earlier this year when the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) rejected it on the grounds it was not cost-effective.
Opposition politicians attacked the SNP Government for allowing Scots prostate cancer patients to be denied a treatment handed out in Libya to the country's most famous former prisoner.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article