Mr. Niall Byrne:

If I could make a short contribution following on from my colleague from the Department, the expertise of PSI is in respect of its regulatory remit. That remit covers the regulation of retail pharmacy businesses and of pharmacists as registered professionals. We do not claim to be experts in areas beyond that remit. In respect of giving a view that would be helpful to the committee, we are obviously not here to comment on actions by other professionals. However, the role of pharmacists is not simply to stand in the dispensary and hand over whatever a prescription specifies when it is presented. Pharmacists are expected and indeed required by the regulatory framework to use their professional skills, competencies and specialist knowledge about medicines to ensure that a patient only receives medicine that is going to be safe and efficacious in respect of his or her specific needs. Our code of practice is a statutory code of conduct against which pharmacists are held accountable to the highest level. It states that there may be circumstances in which the judgment of the pharmacist might conflict with the stated requirements of the patient. That is the exercise of professional judgment.

These are not simple matters. Our system of control for medicines to ensure the safety of patients and the public does involve various checks and balances.

Deputy Boyd Barrett made a point about GPs issuing prescriptions. I do not have a view on the manner in which GPs issue prescriptions. That is entirely a matter for GPs. Our system does not work in such a way that a prescription leads to the supply of specified medicines. The pharmacist plays an important role and exercises his or her judgment on what is or is not dispensed in terms of a prescription. Pharmacists commonly engage with GPs and other medical professions on what is specified on prescriptions and whether it is intended and efficacious for the patient. There can be a lot of dialogue between the relevant professions. It is not simply a case of prescription equals supply. That is not the way the system works.

We are all very concerned about the well-being of people who find themselves in circumstances where they need access to medicines. They may have conditions that are quite intractable and resistant to conventional forms of treatment. I hope I noted Deputy Boyd Barrett's words correctly that he uttered in the heat of the moment. It is important to note the following. It is not the case that we, as an Irish society, sell drugs that kill people. That is not what happens. No pharmacy knowingly sells drugs that can kill people. Medicines have inherent risks. Many medicines are toxic and have toxic effects, as we all know. It is important that the Deputy's statement does not simply sit on the record. He possibly did not intend to make the suggestion. In practice, we all seek to minimise and balance the risks of medicines of all kinds with the potential benefits. As the committee reported in its report on medicinal cannabinoids that it published last January, there are risks and potential benefits. The report called for careful cognisance of the attendant risks and made the following recommendation. The foreword stated: "It is the Committee’s view that Ireland should pursue a balanced course of action in considering the merits of authorising the use of medicinal cannabinoids". The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, as the regulator of pharmacies, supports that position because we feel it is in the public's interest. The foreword contained a public interest statement. My colleague, Dr. Nestor, will make a few helpful points.