Roaccutane

Debate between Nick Harvey and Richard Drax

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

It is good, Mr Streeter, to have the opportunity to debate this topic this afternoon. I have been aware of the issue for a long time. Roaccutane raises a lot of understandable passion among those who are directly affected. It is a form of the drug isotretinoin, used to treat severe acne and manufactured by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche. It was licensed for use in the UK 30 years ago, in 1983. Since then, in the UK alone, it has been implicated in reports of 878 psychiatric disorders, including 44 suspected suicides.

Next month, in January, it will be 10 years since my constituents’ son, Jon Medland, tragically took his own life while studying for a medical degree in Manchester. Having heard of its “miraculous” effects, Jon began taking Roaccutane to clear a relatively mild case of acne. Just three and a half weeks later, he died, having transformed from a successful, outgoing, happy young man to a withdrawn and depressed individual. Jon had never suffered from depression. Everything in his case points to an adverse reaction to the medicine. As the coroner said:

“For a drug to affect a person of a very solid life foundation...deserves further investigation”.

Despite a number of similar cases and mounting scientific evidence, we seem to have lost sight of the precautionary principle when it comes to Roaccutane. It is impossible for my constituents—Jon’s parents, Pamela and Jonathan, who are here today—and the other families affected, to achieve genuine closure while young lives are still at risk and reports continue to come in.

The purpose of today’s debate is to call for a thorough re-examination of the evidence and an investigation into the use of Roaccutane, for stricter guidelines to medical professionals on prescribing the drug and for the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to show greater will in warning of the risks.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) on securing this debate on a subject that has affected one of my constituents, Mr Derek Jones. Forgive me if I am jumping the gun by raising this issue. My constituent, Mr Jesse Jones, committed suicide, and someone who wrote to Mr Derek Jones after reading an article in The Mail on Sunday related another case. In both cases, the deceased were referred for psychiatric treatment after stopping the drug, but because suicide occurred after they stopped taking the drug, no warning was given to the right officials.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The point when people are at the greatest risk can be as long as six months after taking the drug. In the case of John Medland, the impact was swift and profound, but in other cases, it has occurred some time later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I am not entirely sure that I agree. Other treatments for acne are available. I readily acknowledge that they may not be as effective, but they include antibiotics and a variety of other treatments. Unless and until we have some way to predict which people are most likely to suffer catastrophic side effects, I would prefer on the precautionary principle that no one at all took the drug. If we could predict with some certainty—whether by means of genetics or whatever—who might be predisposed to such side effects, then and only then might it be safe to argue that anyone without such a predisposition could safely use the drug, but we are nowhere near that yet. I suffered from acne and was prescribed antibiotics for 11 years or so to deal with it. It is a miserable business—no one would make any bones about that—but there are other treatments, and the catastrophic consequences for some people of using the drug suggest that we would be better off without it.

[Richard Drax]

On that point, Robyn Cole, who is not my constituent, wrote a moving letter to Mr Jones saying that the best cure that she had for acne was sunshine, and if only she had been told that initially. On the dysfunctions caused by the drugs, Mr Jones wrote in an e-mail to me:

“Sexual dysfunction is not included in the patient information notes; Roche said that they were not aware of this side effect. But as one sufferer told me, if they put ‘sexual dysfunction’ in the leaflet, no one would take it.”

His son was severely affected, and Robyn Cole also tells me that she is still physically affected some years on, having given up the drug.

Defence Reform

Debate between Nick Harvey and Richard Drax

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I agree. Uncertainty always has a destabilising effect. I can assure my hon. Friend and the members of the armed forces that they will not have long to wait. However, it is more important that we get this right than that we do it quickly. These decisions are a once-in-a-generation rebalancing of the Army’s structure. If we get it wrong, the Army will suffer the consequences for decades to come, so it is important to take a little time and get it right. The House will not have long to wait for announcements to be made.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

We hear reports that people are being targeted for redundancy and will therefore not qualify for their full pension. Is that correct? If it is, will the Government look kindly on those affected?

[Nick Harvey]

Let me say first to my hon. Friend that the issue of disbandment of battalions, which we were just discussing, and redundancy have nothing to do with each other, so nobody should read into the decisions that are taken about particular battalions that members of those battalions will be made redundant. In answer to the specific question that he puts, nobody has been selected on the basis of their proximity to a retirement date, but inevitably it is the case that where there are lines, some unfortunate souls will fall just the wrong side of the line. It is a matter of great regret, but the redundancy payments will in any case be bigger than the lump sums that those personnel would have received at retirement.