There are two things here. Firstly, there is a requirement that the medical practitioner would report to, the prescribed authority, a patient whom he considered to be a drug addict. Secondly, Deputy O'Connell proposes that there be a special doctor practitioner appointed in an area or for an area who would have the sole responsibility of prescribing for drug addicts and for their treatment. I can see that what is in Deputy O'Connell's mind, if I can interpret it properly, is a voluntary arrangement—possibly voluntary is not enough in this case —for notification of addicts to the National Drugs Advisory Centre. We have to distinguish between that and the National Drugs Advisory Board. The profession are asked to notify people whom they consider to be drug addicts. My information is that it is not working satisfactorily, that it is not done in all cases. There are some doctors who are co-operating in this proposal by Deputy O'Connell but a minority are not, and, of course, we cannot ignore the minority.
It appears that the staff of the National Drugs Advisory Centre are not getting sufficient information. They are not getting the full facts as to the extent of the drug problem. The minority can, of course, do quite an amount of damage. The argument in favour—I do not want to anticipate Deputy O'Connell's argument—is that compulsory notification would not alone give the full picture of drug addiction but the trend, say, in respect of the use of different drugs over different periods. The system of compulsory notification has its merits. It is not a very good analogy but there is an obligation on a doctor to report in the case of an infectious disease. It would probably not be a pertinent matter with an allergy because that is not a disease in the field of public health generally. When we are talking about drugs we are talking about individuals as far as the consumption of drugs is concerned. I would be under an obligation, hence I would be favourably disposed under this amendment, to have a talk to the medical profession about it.
As far as licensing is concerned that would certainly be a matter that would also have to be discussed with the medical profession. If I can interpret Deputy O'Connell's mind properly it would mean that there would be one man in a particular area. I do not know what extent the area would be in respect of the whole country. It appears to me that it would be easier to control irresponsible prescribing, maybe unconsciously. This is not a great problem now, it is a relatively small problem but it is still a real one. As the law stands and as is envisaged in the Bill, any doctor can prescribe for addicts. This can, of course, create a certain amount of abuse by the addict who could probably go to several doctors and get the various prescriptions for his own use and, if you like, for the sake of peddling because doctors can abuse this system by prescribing excessive doses of drugs. There are cases where a doctor finds it necessary to prescribe some of these controlled drugs in severe cases in order to get an addict over a period during which he can decide to go for treatment.
The idea of licensing one doctor in a particular area would mean that he would be enabled to, more or less, specialise in the treatment. Again, in this respect I think it would be necessary to talk to the medical profession so that we could find out their reaction. What their reaction would be I do not know. That would be what we intend to do. I am thinking merely in terms of inviting licensed doctors to Dublin. As I said before that is a problem in various parts of the country.
However, I would be in favour of the amendment with a proviso that the medical profession would be consulted. What their attitude would be I do not know, what the ethics of it would be I do not know, what the system of the appointment of a licensed doctor would be I do not know, but we must remember that all of us are here in order to try to ensure not alone that drugs are not abused but also—and this is the most important thing—that drug addicts are cured. We should distinguish between the drugs and get consideration for an idea that a doctor through a licence would be allowed to prescribe in respect of what would be considered hard drugs, the really dangerous ones.