HL Deb 12 July 1962 vol 242 cc366-8

3.6 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to assume responsibility for the consequences of the taking of drugs which may be prescribed by the National Health Service without the patient knowing either the name and nature of the drug, or its possible side-effects.]

LORD NEWTON

No, my Lords.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the pharmaceutical service of the National Health Service cost this country last year £84 million, the highest figure reached yet? This was distributed between the drug producers and the chemists for dispensing. Could the noble Lord tell me, in view of the fact that 50 per cent. of these drugs were untested or inadequately tested, if the Government refuse to take responsibility for the irresponsible elements in the pharmaceutical industry, how the public are to be protected?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I cannot accept that this considerable quantity of drugs was either not tested or inadequately tested, as the noble Baroness is alleging. If, in fact, she were right, I imagine that actions would lie against the drug manufacturer.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, does the noble Lord then dissent from the statement made by Professor Wilson, Professor of Pharmacology at Sheffield, who has been quoted time after time, and never before been refuted? And is the noble Lord suggesting to this House that his knowledge of drugs is much greater than that of one of the most eminent specialists in the country?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I am not going to argue about what one particular eminent gentleman has said, but to the best of my knowledge there is no reason for such alarm and despondency as the noble Baroness has just shown to your Lordships.

LORD TAYLOR

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, for various technical reasons, most drugs cannot be tested on human beings, or only on very inadequate trials; and that Professor Wilson is perfectly correct in what he said, and that it is no good his denying it? It is well known that these drugs are not tested. They are mostly tested on animals, and on various small-scale trials on human beings.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I do not know quite what conclusion should be drawn from that. As I understand it, in the testing of drugs there are two stages. First of all, there is the laboratory test, in which animals are probably used. I am advised by those who advise me on these matters that, however exhaustive these laboratory tests, it is impossible to have absolute certainty until you have clinical trials which are carried out by doctors on their patients. For instance, in the case of thalidomide I am advised that until it was actually tried out on pregnant women, one could not be sure that there would be these undesirable side-effects. As I have said, I do not see what conclusion one draws from these facts, except that apparently every potent drug has some side effect or other, and it must be for doctors who prescribe potent drugs to decide whether or not they think it appropriate to prescribe that drug for their patient.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Lord said that a patient might make a claim against the drug manufacturer if there was some ill-effect? I cannot follow that, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the majority of patients receive a prescription with no idea of what they are being prescribed; and certainly there is no question of their identifying the manufacturer with the drug which has been supplied.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I should think that the patient might have a case against the doctor or against the manufacturers, according to the circumstances, but I do not think it is for me to pronounce upon legal matters of that sort or complexity. What I was suggesting earlier in my reply to the noble Baroness was that if it were really the case that manufacturers put on the market drugs which had not been properly tested, and they proved to be dangerous, it might well be that a case would lie against them.

LORD TAYLOR

My Lords, the noble Lord asked what conclusion was to be drawn from his remarks. The conclusion that I drew was that his second remarks were not in agreement with his first remarks.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, speaking as a layman, could the noble Lord tell the House whether the normal National Health patient is the guinea pig for the drug manufacturers?

LORD NEWTON

No, my Lords, that is not so at all.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said just now that until these drugs were tried on pregnant women, no one know what the results were. Does the noble Lord not know that, after these appalling congenital abnormalities were discovered, this drug for the first time was tried on pregnant rabbits and the offspring of these rabbits suffered from the same congenital abnormalities? Does that not prove that this drug had never been adequately tested?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, it was also tried recently on pregnant rats and there were no symptoms of deformity in the offspring.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, is it not the case that all these new drugs are tried out not on National Health patients only but on us all, and all have to take the risk? Some of us fall and some of us do not.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, could I ask the Minister whether he would put it to his right honourable friend, in view of the serious doubts which have been expressed, that some further inquiries might be made into this question and a report made to Parliament?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I will certainly undertake that my right honourable friend will study what your Lordships have said this afternoon. May I say that we seem now to be getting on to the next Question, and perhaps the noble Baroness may now think fit to ask it?