Page 4337 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is quite a bit on glaucoma in the monograph. One of the most interesting statements, if I can quote a paragraph in the monograph, is this:
Merritt ... has made a similar point in criticising the arguments raised against the therapeutic use of marijuana to manage glaucoma: "... each drug family used in glaucoma therapy is capable of producing a lethal response, even when properly prescribed and used ... [but] these drugs are all deemed "safe" for use in glaucoma therapy ... because their adverse consequences are considered less threatening to the patient than blindness" ... Yet marijuana is excluded from therapeutic use because of a possible risk of cancer from long-term daily smoking. "I cannot see", observes Merritt, "how an alleged case of marijuana-induced lung cancer which results in death is significantly different in result from an acute adverse reaction to a myotic drug which results in respiratory failure, except, of course, that the patient with cancer is likely to outlive the patient who is unable to draw in a breath of air".
High standards are set because the drug is part of the prohibition - unacceptably high standards, of course. The same report indicates that of the 6,000 papers on cannabis there is not one that establishes a causal relationship between cannabis and death, unlike many of those other drugs that are used for treatment.
Madam Speaker, it is very important to deal with what Mr Connolly talked about in terms of clinical trials. There is a protocol set out in the legislation for clinical trials for research to be conducted; Mr Connolly is quite right there. It excludes the lower level of research, which is still an important part of research, as any student of medical research knows. The case report is a very important part of research because it establishes, in the initial instance, more than anything, questions that need to be raised; it provides the evidence which leads to the clinical trial. The protocol is set out in the legislation. Remember that, before we can run a clinical trial, a great deal of financial support is required.
After I had spoken to Mr Connolly I approached somebody who is doing a PhD in ophthalmology at the John Curtin School at the Australian National University. The immediate reaction was, "Where can I get the finance to do this kind of research?". In the meantime, there are people - and I have a specific example that was mentioned in the newspaper the other day - who are actually going blind and for whom conventional drugs are not working. How can we say to these people, "No, you cannot have access to a drug that just might work."? They have tried all the others. That is how this legislation will apply.
The medical practitioners, who are aware of their own medical ethics and of their registration, cannot proceed to use these unless, of course, they have tried all the conventional medicines. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the people who are suffering from AIDS, who are undergoing chemotherapy associated with cancer or who are going blind from glaucoma, and for whom conventional medicine has failed. Madam Speaker, this method of possibly providing cannabis for these people is indeed new - it is only a couple of days old - but the principle has been in the community for quite some time. We are not actually launching something that is so incredibly new.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .