Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. I see three layers to this. The first is the pharmacist using it himself or herself. If someone overdoses on the street, can a pharmacist go out to them and use naloxone? As the Senator said, that is already catered for and we already have provision to allow that to happen, subject to the pharmacist getting the appropriate training. I would certainly be more than happy to engage with the Irish Pharmacy Union, IPU, the professional body, so more pharmacists get that training.

There is a second layer. We saw a tragic case, for example, on O'Connell Street some years ago where somebody went into a pharmacy and said they needed naloxone but could not get it. That is the next level. Could the pharmacist go out and do it? Yes, if they are trained. Could they give it to somebody else to do it? No, but we could provide for that in secondary legislation. It would not require this amendment. The Senator's amendment includes the words "in response to the need for urgent or life-saving medical care". I imagine that would be interpreted as something that is happening in a certain moment as opposed to a preventative measure that may or may not be needed for a future situation.

That brings us to the third piece, which I think is where the Senator's amendment is going. As we discussed last week, I am broadly supportive of the idea. I know the Canadians do it, for example. It is saving a lot of lives and would save lives here. It is a broader policy point rather than a pharmacy prescribing point. As with the Senator's previous amendment, if it were the case that the policy was set and there was an expert recommendation that pharmacists could prescribe naloxone, this Bill, as initiated, already covers the eventuality. It would require an agreed policy position and there is not one. It would also require a statutory instrument and subsequent training.

I believe the Bill already covers the first two layers I have mentioned. The first relates to a situation where somebody is outside on the street and the pharmacist wants to give the naloxone to somebody else. We could cover that under secondary legislation.

I do not think the Senator's amendment would cover the third point but I do think it is a matter we need to continue to explore. I will ask my officials to take a look at it. We would need a comparative review to find out what is happening in the UK and how the Canadian experience is working, etc. If, as the Senator and I think, we will hear back that the risk and costs involved are low and the upside is potentially saving lives in many different situations, it is something we should broadly support. However, the Bill, as initiated, already gives us what we need to do that through secondary legislation.