Page 4582 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is a stunt. It is regarded as a stunt. The Police Association are quite clearly saying to you - and to you, Mr Stefaniak, once called a friend of the Police Association, I understand - "Do not have a part of this. Reject all of it, because that is the only safe course of action". If you want clinical tests, if you want to achieve the result that Mrs Carnell says that she wants to achieve, have proper clinical testing. Have it pursuant to the provisions of this Act that are available without these amendments. I implore you, Mr Kaine, as the elder statesperson of your party, to prevail upon the excesses of some of your colleagues and get them to see sense on this matter.
MR MOORE (5.06): Madam Speaker, Terry Connolly knows. He knows just how much misrepresentation he has been involved in. He knows the impact he has had on a number of people in this community. He knows how he has trampled on a number of people. The import of the legislation we passed last week was to waive a $100 fine in some small number of cases - for a few people who are suffering from cancer or AIDS or are going blind. That is what we did.
In theJournal of Clinical Oncology in 1991, and this report is repeated in the report of the National Task Force on Cannabis, we notice that, of members of the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, more than 44 per cent of the respondents reported recommending the illegal use of marijuana for the control of emesis. Some 48 per cent, or almost half, of oncologists in the United States who are members of the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, would prescribe cannabis to some of their patients, where other drugs had failed, if it was legal. That is what we are talking about.
I listened to Mr Connolly talk about clinical trials, and I wondered about the definition of clinical trials in our Act. I wondered whether Mr Connolly would be prepared to indicate to the house whether he would include in the term "trial" the sorts of trials that are covered in such eminent texts as Professor Hennekens's Epidemiology in Medicine or Professor Abramson's Survey Methods in Community Medicine. We do not have just clinical studies; rather, we can look at correlational studies, descriptive studies, case report studies, case series studies, cross-sectional studies, observational studies, case control studies, cohort studies and intervention studies. Intervention studies are those that are usually referred to as clinical trials. We know that in community medicine, when dealing with such issues as this, it would be important for people to understand that there is a whole range of trials.
One of the disadvantages of rescinding, and of the amendment we have before us that restricts us to what is in this text, is that, on face value, it appears that this legislation will restrict us back to a very limited number and range of studies we might be able to do. My mind would be eased somewhat if the Minister stood up and said that in granting authorisation he would not use the term "clinical trial" in the way it is strictly used by these texts but, rather, would accept the general concept that the trials we are talking about are medical trials and would fit into a normal medical protocol. Certainly, if you were to read the strict letter of the law, this amendment would undo a great deal of research, as does the Act itself.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .