House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Chronic Pain Health Care CHRONIC PAIN HEALTH CARE The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:30): I move: That this house calls on the state government to review facilities and services available for those suffering from chronic pain with a view to further improving health care for South Australians. Sir, I am sure there are other members here (I know the member for Frome is one) who have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about the issue of chronic pain and pain relief. As the motion states, I am not saying that the government and the current hospital medical system are not doing anything—they are; what I am suggesting is that perhaps the government, through the two ministers (minister Lomax-Smith and minister Hill), could have a look at the services and facilities available for dealing with chronic pain to see if they can be improved. I understand that there is something like 6,000 South Australians who are receiving pain relief treatment involving the use of opiates or a similar type of medication. I appreciate that the issue of pain relief is not easy or simple. I have great sympathy for people who have chronic pain. I must say that I have been fortunate in my life in that I have caused pain to others but I have never experienced chronic pain myself. I would like to put before the parliament some of the issues put by people who have contacted me regarding the matter of chronic pain relief. In doing so, I should say that I have spoken informally with both minister Hill and minister Lomax-Smith about this issue and alerted them to some of the issues and concerns raised with me by constituents about the matter of pain relief. One of the central concerns put to me is that (about 18 months ago) the body regulating the use of drugs for pain relief has been moved to the Drug and Alcohol Services SA (DASSA). There has been concern expressed that it should not have been moved from SA Health to Drug and Alcohol Services SA. The argument put and the claim made is that DASSA is dealing with drug addicts and should not be the body dealing with people who require drug treatment in order to deal with chronic pain. I am sure the minister or some other member in here will respond to these points and make a case which, obviously, will be different from what has been put to me. Constituents have made some claims which, as I say, I am raising on their behalf. I will be interested to hear what the minister or nominated MP puts in response. Constituents have put to me that it takes a long time to get approval for pain treatment for their patients. They spend a lot of time negotiating with DASSA and then wait many weeks for approval. Clearly, if someone is suffering from chronic pain then delay would obviously add to the burden that they are already carrying. Another claim is that doctors are now choosing not to deal with pain patients because of the difficulties in getting approval and so on and that the treatment is excessively regulated and primitive. I guess we can all acknowledge, especially where you are using certain drugs, that the authorities have to be careful that they do not, in any way, promote the misuse of drugs. I am sure that will be one of the arguments that the minister will use in his response. Constituents also say that DASSA (Drug and Alcohol Services SA) are controlling pain patients with mechanisms that are more appropriate for drug addicts, including sending non-addicted patients to a drug addiction centre (Waranilla), thereby denying them the doctor of their choice. That is a claim made and, once again, I will be interested to hear a response. Furthermore, they suggest that decisions are made without examining the patient, taking their history or speaking to the treating doctor. It is stated also that the group Dignity For Pain Sufferers (DFPS) is aware of 100 people who are so traumatised that they have joined that organisation in order to lobby for support. They suggest that there could possibly be another 500 who are not being offered pain relief because their doctors are fearful to prescribe adequate medication as it may incur the wrath of the regulators. Another issue they have raised is that, currently, there is no legal appeal against the regulator's decision. I would certainly endorse the fact (and I am sure the ministers would, too) that the wellbeing of patients and the treatment and alleviation of pain should be the main considerations in any scheme administered by the state government. I have to say from my dealings with the Royal Adelaide Hospital Pain Clinic in following up for constituents that I have been very impressed by the prompt response and attention given by the clinical nurse consultant who works in that area. There is no doubt that there is a commitment to the welfare of the patient. The question is: can the system be made better? The thrust of this motion is really to ask the two ministers to have a look to see whether we have the best arrangements in place. I suppose there will always be some people for whom it is not possible to give 100 per cent satisfaction. We know that, with certain conditions, there is no total pain relief. We know that, sadly, this happens with certain cancers—some people cannot get 100 per cent pain relief. However, for most people the technology is there to provide adequate pain relief. To conclude, a constituent I will call Mr M says that he is in constant pain. He has been assisted by the Royal Adelaide Hospital pain clinic. He has had implants that have not worked properly and other complications. I guess he is one of those who is in the category of feeling as though they would like more effective assistance and treatment. I have been contacted by at least one person who was specialising in pain relief who has expressed concern about the system. As I said earlier, the authorities are clearly trying to make sure that there is no misuse or abuse of some of the more powerful painkillers by people whose main purpose may not be simply pain relief. We need—and I am asking the government—to have a look at the system and the arrangements to see whether this system can be better, because we do not want any South Australian unnecessarily enduring chronic ongoing pain when we could do something about it. I commend the motion to the house. I understand the opposition will be seeking to amend the motion. At the end of the day, this is not about trying to score points or votes: it is about trying to help our fellow South Australians to have a quality of life which, sadly, some currently miss out on. I commend the motion. Ms SIMMONS House of Assembly Morialta Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (11:39): I move to amend the motion as follows: That this house calls on the state government to continue to provide services to those suffering from chronic pain as part of the Health Care Plan, which aims to improve health care for South Australians. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I am happy to accept the amendment. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: I move to disallow the amendment. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not seen the amendment in writing yet. I need to see it in writing. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker— The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need to hear debate. Having read the amendment, it is in order. It is not a direct negative and it is on the same topic as the original motion. Indeed, I think I heard the mover indicate that he was prepared to accept it. The member for Morialta. Ms SIMMONS House of Assembly Ms SIMMONS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.