Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 4:12:17 to 4:15:06
A discussion on the restrictions placed on doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, focusing on medical ethics and evidence-based treatment.
Topics: Health, Law reform
Speakers: Prof Anthony Lawler, Senator Malcolm Roberts, Speaker 34, Unknown Speaker, Senator Anne Ruston
>> Okay. Uh I've got two questions that go [laughter] >> It'll be a long Okay. Okay. Hydroxychloricquin and ivormectin. Is hydroxychloricquin and ivamectin. Are hydroxychloro hydroxychloricquin and ivormectin available to doctors to prescribe for influenza and related illness? Are we now letting doctors use their training and professional judgment in the best interest of their patients again or not? Prior to the pandemic, both ivomekin and hydroxychloroquin were legally available for Australian doctors to prescribe without a knock on the door from APA. For clarity, no the medication was ever recommended for influenza and similar illnesses. With this in with this ban, you've taken away the discretion among doctors to act in the best interest of their patients at this stage of the outbreak. [clears throat] How can you justify breaking the duties duty a doctor has with their patient all the way from Canra remotely?
>> So, um, thank thank you for the question, Senator. I I'll I'll ask um perhaps Professor Kidd to reflect on on some of the response. You you you do reflect there on the duty of the doctors. Um there are a number of well recognized duty uh duties that doctors hold towards their patient. They include such things as respecting the autonomy of the patient in their decision-m uh respecting the confidentiality of the patient in their decision-m. But uh two other significant pillars of the doctor's duty are what we describe as beneficence and non-maleficence. Non-maleficence is to first do no harm. Uh the decisions that were taken around restricting use of uh of uh um those medicines during CO were related to ensuring that harm is not done in that uh the um the that patients were being uh convinced to take medicines that have no supportive evidence that they were effective for CO. uh but also that it meant that those medicines were not available for other patients for whom they were needed um for the actual approved indications. But the fourth duty that I described that of beneficence is that we should always be doing good for our patients and it is difficult to um reconcile the duty you describe uh with recommending treatments that have no supportive evidence indicating that they are useful for the indication for which you're describing.
>> Professor Lola, you're not aware of the many many papers for example Dr. Pierce Cory in in the states has listed I think it's over a hundred papers that that show Ivormectin is effective. We are going to have to wrap up tracks stop tracks by
evening.
>> Sorry chair.
>> We're going to need to wrap this up
here. Perhaps if there's further information that can be provided to Senator Roberts, it can be done so on notice. And I'm going to give the call to Senator Ruston.