Dr. Lorraine Nolan:

Deputy O'Brien is correct. If I can return to the point about the provision that can be used, it is a licensing provision which the Minister can use at his discretion and ultimately it is up to the Minister to decide whether it should be used. I can give a legalistic explanation of it. It is an exemption from prohibition. By virtue of it being an exemption from a prohibition, it is always unique to the individual circumstances of a particular case. That brings me back to what Dr. Colin Doherty said. It might be for some patients given the immediacy and urgency of their needs and lack of alternatives. All the evidence is taken together to make a decision collectively and it may be that in those instances a clinician, and I cannot speak for clinicians, may make the decision that in his or her opinion and judgment, he or she wishes to try this.

The other point is that the review must look at the range of products that exist. Different levels of evidence are being gathered for each. Dr. Colin Doherty spoke about Epidiolex. That is more advanced than others. When one looks at the weight of evidence that exists for some products, it might be the case that the outcome of this review would be that we can make a decision on certain products and on certain indications. That is certainly the case with the frameworks in place in other countries. They do not have a blanket allowance but only allow it for treatment of certain conditions. They look at it in that way where they believe there is enough weight of evidence to allow it. These are all the issues the group will have to examine.

On Deputy Kenny's question about the composition of the group, I omitted to say that a consultant oncologist is also involved in the group.