The wife of a Croydon cancer sufferer has labelled the decision not to allow a life prolonging drug on the NHS as a "death sentence".

Like many other sufferers of multiple myeloma and their relatives Jennifer Richardson has been fighting to make Velcade available.

However, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently said the drug, which costs around £18,000 per patient, is not cost effective - despite it being made available in Scotland.

In August the Croydon Guardian reported John and Jennifer Richardson were fighting for the drug to me made widely available.

John, 58, a relapsed multiple myeloma sufferer, had already used the drug.

Speaking about the decision, Jennifer said: "I just wonder why we bother to do cancer research. It's down to cost - they haven't taken into account any of the research about how it works.

"John is very angry. Most of the drugs used to treat myeloma go through NICE so what will they do next?"

Jennifer would consider moving to Scotland to get her husband the drug, but fears the upheaval would not be good for his condition.

It would also mean the couple would have to move away from the cancer hospital The Royal Marsden in Sutton.

"We can't guarantee that the drug will always be available in Scotland," she said, "We're not the only ones affected by this. This is a death sentence to people."

Cancer charities have also slammed the decision. Chief executive of Myeloma UK, Eric Low, said: "This represents probably the single biggest setback in the history of the treatment of myeloma and the entire myeloma community is devastated about the decision.

"NICE is explicit in its final guidance that Velcade is clinically effective and recognise the lack of an alternative. That fact is not up for dispute; rather, this is an unmistakable instance of where the cost of treatment is seen as more important than peoples' lives."

Andrea Sutcliffe, who led the appraisal for NICE to decide on whether the drug should or should not be made available on the NHS, said: "The independent appraisal committee, having considered the comments received during consultation on the earlier draft of the guidance, has not changed its earlier conclusion that, although the drug is clinically effective compared with high dose dexamethasone, its cost-effectiveness has not been satisfactorily demonstrated and therefore further research is required."