Dáil debates

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2016: Second Stage

 

7:35 pm

Photo of Mick BarryMick Barry (Cork North Central, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

One aim of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is to amend the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013 to allow the reimbursement of some over-the-counter medical products, including emergency contraception, to medical cardholders. I, along with Members from the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit, AAA-PBP, will vote for this. It is better that those on medical cards and those on low incomes can have access to emergency contraception rather than being forced to pay for it. However, I draw attention to some of the problems with the current system in this regard.

Emergency contraception is more likely to be effective the sooner it is taken. A woman who has need of emergency contraception and can afford to pay for it over the counter in a pharmacist is one matter. What about the situation facing a woman who has to go to her general practitioner for a prescription for emergency contraception? What happens if the GP is closed for the weekend, as is the norm? It means the woman has to wait until such time as she can get a prescription. The longer one waits, the less effective the emergency contraception is likely to be. This discriminates against those on medical cards and low incomes who, because they are forced to wait, will have an increased chance of an unwanted pregnancy.

How do we overcome this situation to get rid of this problem? A simple way would be not to require a prescription for emergency contraception for a woman on a medical card. A better way would be that emergency contraception should be available at pharmacists and free of charge. This is a health priority for women faced with an emergency situation and who want to take steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. It is not like this is not done in other countries. One need look no further than the UK. A woman in London, Birmingham or Glasgow who finds herself in such a situation can go to some pharmacies, a contraception clinic or most National Health Service walk-in centres to avail of emergency contraception free of charge. If it can be done in the UK, why can it not be done here? We believe it would be the right course of action.

I draw attention also to another incredible fact. In Ireland in 2016, a pharmacist is legally entitled to refuse to dispense emergency contraception on the grounds of conscientious objection. Such a pharmacist is obliged by law to refer the woman to another pharmacist who will provide emergency contraception. However, in practice in some rural areas, where there may not be a significant number of pharmacies, it can mean emergency contraception becomes extremely difficult to access or even inaccessible. That is completely unacceptable. This conscientious objection get-out clause should be scrapped. This is the 21st century and this country has to stop facilitating those who would drag us back to the 19th century. Women’s health is too important for that.

The Bill provides for the plain packaging for tobacco products, a measure I strongly support. I would warn, however, against this progressive measure being trumped by new trade agreements. For example, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, currently under negotiation between the European Union and the United States, would provide for the possibility of the establishment of investor-state dispute settlement courts. These would be business courts which would allow big business interests to sue governments for hindering their attempts to maximise profits. As such, these courts could regard the plain packaging for tobacco products measure as an illegal restriction on the right of tobacco companies to maximise profits and sell their products. It has happened in other countries with similar settlement courts. This measure is a progressive one that should be adopted. Instead, the likes of the TTIP agreement should be scrapped, along with its investor-state dispute settlement courts. They are courts for big business and are not in the interests of ordinary people.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.