Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. There is a lot of emotive debate around this topic. A woman from Cork is coming to the Dáil today, and it is important that we acknowledge the work and effort she has put into campaigning on this particular issue. However, just because people are campaigning does not mean that what is being sought can be provided by political decisions.

We are discussing the health implications of individuals and, more broadly, society in the context of making cannabinoid oils with THC available through an access programme at some stage. That will require a lot of monitoring, evaluation and correlation of medical and scientific data over the next number of years.

In the context of what is being discussed, and given the backdrop of Vera Twomey arriving in the Dáil in the next hour or so, there has been a lot of confusion about the use of cannabinoid oils with THC. Parliamentary questions were been tabled and there was a perception that a registered doctor could prescribe oils with THC in them. Reference has been made to a number of parliamentary questions asked last October, replies to which stated an application could be made for a licence if a registered doctor made an application. However, it was not made clear that a consultant paediatric neurologist had to make such applications.

I can understand the need to ensure there is proper scrutiny in the prescribing of drugs. There should also be proper scrutiny of Dáil questions and replies to ensure that they are accurate and do not mislead people, in particular in sensitive matters. For a long period of time, the parliamentary questions gave a family hope they could access something they believed could change the life of their daughter but were subsequently refused on the grounds that a paediatric neurologist was not prescribing the drug.

I refer to the access programme. How far has the European Medicines Agency gone in terms of examining the issue? What other countries are making cannabinoid oils with THC available to patients under various licensing systems? Are some countries more proactive than others? Is there a lot of resistance in other countries? I ask the witnesses to expand on the international comparators, primarily within the European Union, North America and Australia. Did the witnesses consider that when compiling the report, for which I compliment them on bringing forward expeditiously? It highlights issues such as spasticity, nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy and epilepsy. Why were those three areas highlighted in the report? Was it because there is a body of research available or are the witnesses saying that other medicines may not work? Are they suggesting that because they do not work something else should be tried? Is there a strong body of international evidence to show that there is an improvement in outcomes in the three areas mentioned?

How many people have applied for licences in Ireland? Without breaching confidentiality rules, how were such drugs prescribed? Did consultants, GPs or other individuals prescribe cannabinoid oil with THC? At what level were the clinicians who prescribed such drugs?