Document No. No of Pages Description Decision Basis Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Briefings for Minister Reilly and Fitzgerald as released for FOI Item Type Report Authors Department of Health and Children Publisher Department of Health and Children Download date 02/10/2021 20:30:23 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10147/132499 Find this and similar works at - http://www.lenus.ie/hse Schedule for FOI Briefing for Ministers Reilly and Fitzgerald Document No. No of Pages Description Decision Basis of Refusal 1 2 Index Release 2 2 Abortion Release 3 2 Administration of Morning After Pill Release 4 2 Assisted Human Reproduction Release 5 3 Briefing Material Arrangements Release 6 52 Brief for Minister of Children Part Release Section 11(1)(b) 7 2 Business Plan Overviews: Primary Care Release 8 3 BPO: Acute Hospitals, Cancer Release 9 4 BPO: CMO Release 10 3 BPO: Finance Release 11 2 BPO: National HR Release 12 2 BPO: Office of Older People Release 13 3 BPO: Parliamentary and Corporate Affairs Release 14 3 Cancer Services Release 15 5 Chronic Diseases Release 16 20 Note on Department Release 17 5 Disability Release 18 5 Drugs Release 19 2 Early Childhood Care and Education Release 20 2 Female Genital Mutilation Release 21 3 Food Safety Release 22 24 Governance of HSE Part Release Sections 20(1), 21(1)(c), 27(1)(c) 23 2 Head Shops Misuse of Drugs Release 24 2 Health Behaviours Release 25 3 Health Protection Release 26 1 Health Research Part Release Section 20(1)(a) 1 of 2 Schedule for FOI Briefing for Ministers Reilly and Fitzgerald Document No. No of Pages Description Decision Basis of Refusal 27 2 Human Tissue and Organ donation Release 28 5 Medicines Release 29 5 Mental Health Release 30 1 Palliative Care Release 31 10 Patient Safety Part Release Section 27(1)(c) 32 24 Private Health Insurance Detailed Part Release Sections 20(1), 22(1)(a), 27(1)(b), 32(1)(a) 33 13 Public Health Release 34 1 Rare Diseases Release 35 28 Acute Hospitals Part Release Section 20(1) 36 16 Child Welfare and Protection Unit Part Release Section 11(1)(b) 37 7 Office for Older People Part Release Sections 20(1), 31(1)(b) 38 16 Primary Care Part Release Sections 20(1), 21(1)(b) 39 4 Social Inclusion Release 40 2 Sun bed Legislation Release 41 2 Tobacco Control Release 42 46 Enablers Part Release Sections 19(1)(a), 20(1), 21(1)(c), 22(1)(a), 27(1)(b) 43 15 Letter to Michael Scanlan from Sean McGrath Release 44 2 Blood Safety Release 45 17 Significant Issues document for MAC Part Release Sections 19(1)(a), 20(1), 22(1)(a), 31(1)(b), 46(1)(b) 46 3 Co Location Withheld Section 20(1) 47 2 National Plan for Oncology Withheld Sections 20, 27 48 3 Private Health Insurance Withheld Section 27 2 of 2 ABORTION Background The European Court of Human Rights heard in December 2009 an application by three women that it is a breach of their rights under the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights for the Irish State not to provide abortion in circumstances where a woman wishes to undergo an abortion (the A, B and C case). The object of the application was stated to be to demonstrate that the constitutional and criminal law of the Irish State breaches the Applicants’ rights. The Government submitted that the application be deemed inadmissible primarily on the basis that the Applicants failed to exhaust their domestic remedies. The judgement of the Court confirms that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is in conformity with the European convention on Human Rights. The Court held: In the case of the first and second applicants, Ms A and Ms B, the Court dismissed their applications, finding that there had been no violation of their rights under the Convention. In the case of the third applicant, Ms C, the Court found that Ireland had failed to respect the applicant’s private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, as there was no accessible and effective procedure to enable her to establish whether she qualified for a lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with Irish law. The Court ruled that "no criteria or procedures have been... laid down in Irish law... by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty…" and held that further legal clarity was required. The Court acknowledged that the implementation of Article 40.3.3 "would be a sensitive and complex task" and confirmed that it was not for that Court to indicate the most appropriate means for Ireland to achieve this. The judgement of the European Court of Human Rights is binding on Ireland. Supervision of Ireland’s execution of the judgment falls to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe have proposed that supervision of the judgement in A, B and C v Ireland would be under a new enhanced procedure for supervision of judgements rather than the standard procedure of simplified supervision. Enhanced supervision concerns complex cases to which the Committee of Ministers give priority and which would also entail more intensive involvement of the Secretariat. Enhanced supervision will not add to our existing obligation to implement the judgement. Action Plan Steps will need to be taken to ensure no future similar violations of Article 8 occur. Ireland is required to submit an action plan to the Committee of Ministers within six months of the judgement (in this case by the 16th of June 2011). The action plan must set out the measures Ireland intends to take to implement the judgement. Where it is not possible to identify all the measures immediately, the plan must set out the steps to be taken to determine the measures required, including an indicative timetable for such steps. 1 The Social Inclusion Unit is currently preparing a paper on viable options for the implementation of the judgement with the Department’s legal advisors. This paper will then be submitted for managerial and Ministerial approval. This is one of two issues pertaining to the remit of the Social Inclusion Unit to appear on the Risk Register, along with Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR). The Unit is hoping to be able to prepare options for an Action Plan in relation to the ABC v Ireland ruling as well as policy proposals for AHR. However, in light of current resources, a decision will then have to be made as to which of these issues will be prioritised for the development of regulations/legislation. Social Inclusion Unit 24th February 2011 2 Briefing Material for the Minister Administration of Morning-After Pill by Pharmacists Background In January, 2011, Boots Ireland wrote to the former Minister advising of their intention to offer a pharmacist-led Emergency Contraception Service to women over 18. This involved the Boots medical director setting out in a formal protocol or “patient group direction” the specific patient types, circumstances and procedures to be followed by a Boots pharmacist in determining whether an emergency hormonal contraceptive would be appropriate for the patient presenting at the pharmacy. The protocol required the patient to be interviewed by a Boots pharmacist in the private consultation area to determine whether it was appropriate for the patient to be administered the product. (By way of background, in July 2010, Minister Harney launched the Boots Ireland Patient Group Direction Services and in particular its seasonal influenza vaccination service which commenced in October 2010). Patient Group Directions under Irish Medicines Legislation The initiatives taken by Boots relied on Regulation 4A(1)(c) of the Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations 2003-2009. This provides that it is not a contravention of the Regulations for any person to administer a prescription medicine to a patient in accordance with the directions of a medical practitioner. During the Swine Flu Pandemic in Autumn/Winter 2009/2010 this provision was used by the HSE to allow the administration by nurses and other health professionals at HSE clinics of pandemic vaccines (which are prescription medicines) to patients in accordance with the directions of a HSE medical officer, without the requirement for that practitioner to assess every patient and write a prescription in each case. Patient Group Directions have been used in the UK for some time and are used for managing single treatment episodes rather than chronic illnesses. Legal Advice in relation to Regulation 4A(1)(c) Legal advice was sought by the Irish Medicines Board in regard to the emergency hormonal contraception service provided by Boots. This opinion concluded that the scheme operated by Boots did not comply with Regulation 4A(1)(c). Boots were so advised and have suspended the Emergency Contraception Service launched in January. 1 The Department’s Legal Unit has been consulted and, in summary, it concurs with the advice obtained by the IMB. In view of the potential implications of this advice for patient group directions generally, further legal clarification is being been sought. Current Position with regard to Emergency Hormonal Contraceptive Products On 15th February, 2011 the Irish Medicines Board announced its decision to allow the sale of NorLevo without prescription. It is one of two emergency contraception pills currently licensed for use in Ireland. It may now be supplied from pharmacies without a prescription. On 17th February the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland issued guidelines to pharmacists under the Pharmacy Act 2007 requiring that the emergency hormonal contraceptive may only be supplied by the pharmacist personally and following a private consultation between the patient and pharmacist.