Page 4469 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I can foresee a situation where a doctor is involved in research into matters totally unrelated to drugs of dependence and in particular the use of cannabis in the treatment of a physical or mental condition, but yet be entitled by this Amendment to certify in writing that the use of cannabis by a person is appropriate for the treatment of that person's physical or mental condition.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms Follett: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
MINISTER FOR HEALTH
Motion of Want of Confidence
Debate resumed.
MR CONNOLLY: The Government Solicitor went on to say:
On the other hand, another doctor may be involved in the treatment of patients who are suffering from conditions, either physical or mental which may be appropriately treated with cannabis, but unless that doctor is engaged in medical research, that doctor, despite what may be a lengthy period of experience and training would not be entitled to certify in writing that the use of cannabis is appropriate in those circumstances.
This is a very confusing proposition. He continued:
What this could eventually lead to is some spurious claims by medical practitioners that they are engaged in medical research and indeed if I was the legal adviser of such doctors I would advise them to merely open a file and start keeping records and statistics of the treatment of people by the use of cannabis. Further, it seems to me to be an invitation to medical practitioners to experiment on their patients by certifying cannabis for them within the scheme of s171B and then observing the result.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .