Is the decision by the government to save money through NHS Viagra restriction justified?
Recently, reports circulated that criticisms have greeted the government’s decision in September to restrict the availability of Viagra tablets through the NHS.
The maker of the diamond-shaped blue pills Pfizer, Inc., not only described the decision as legally indefensible, but also went on to tell the high court that Frank Dobson, the secretary of Health, was acting outside his powers when he issued guidance last September to encourage doctors not to prescribe the drug.
‘Frank Dobson’s announcement on the restriction of the use of Viagra is unfair,’ a spokesperson for Pfizer fumed.
Licensed for use in European Union countries in September, Viagra tablets have however been restricted for use when Mr Dobson, fearful of the cost implication of the little blue pills to the NHS, told medical practitioners to prescribe the drug only in exceptional circumstances, until further notice.
In addition, NHS trusts were told not to support the availability of Viagra tablets on the NHS.
According to Pfizer, the decision went against the statutory duties of the doctors to prescribe the drug according to clinical need and could be tantamount to breaching the EU law.
The decision stipulates that the drug will only be legally rationed with approval of the parliament, as the government seeks to do at present.
Professional and legal duty
David Pannick, QC, for Pfizer, told the court: "The circular can not be defended legally. Its purpose and its effect were aimed at deterring GPs from the prescription of Viagra.
"We believe the GPs have a professional and legal duty to exercise their clinical judgment and to prescribe such treatment with such medicine according to the need of a patient, regardless of the patient's financial position to pay for the drug."
Since the guidance was issued in September, the government has released its opinions on which patients are eligible to receive Viagra.
A week earlier, the government increased the number of conditions for men who would be eligible to get the drug. The list includes men who have prostate cancer, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.
According to impotence experts, ‘The list is still restrictive and discriminatory as it is.’
Mr Pannick opined that the action of the High Court could serve as "a precursor" to further lawsuit over Viagra.
What Mr Pannick asks is for the court to decide whether the Health Secretary implication that GPs have no statutory right to prescribe according to clinical need is justified.
Clinical need
Sources say Pfizer is still considering whether to take action against the government over the decision to restrict the availability of Viagra on the NHS.
However, the British Medical Association has urged its members to keep on prescribing Viagra tablets on the NHS to anyone who is eligible to use the drug.
But the association cautioned that, peradventure the new guidance gets approval of the parliament – as the health secretary had predicted it will by July – doctors will have no choice but to conform.
The Department of Health feared that excessive demand for Viagra tablets could be too expensive for the health service to sustain.
Mr Pannick confirms that GPs often had to deal with patients who would falsify their ED claims, and it was the doctor’s duty to make use of their professional judgment in each case and make appropriate prescription.
Pannick went on to say that some of the reasons given by Mr Dobson for the Viagra restriction decision "simply would not withstand intense scrutiny".
