Actually, I view this as a blank cheque. In fact, if you read it carefully, it doesn't have to be for good health outcomes. It can be just for broader public policy, so there's really no threshold.
You would think that if you were going to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.... That is what off-label use is all about. I don't care if you're talking about the promotion or not; with this promotion provision, if the minister says that you can't promote a specific drug, then you can't publish a clinical trial. You would be in violation. A clinical trial that showed efficacy for some other use would be a violation, as a promotion for off-label use. A doctor couldn't publish a case series. A doctor doing a presentation at rounds on how a drug worked for an off-label use, and anyone even mentioning clinical research, be it a double-blind clinical trial or anything else.... We're going into the area of censorship. From a health outcome perspective, in any way interfering with the doctor-patient relationship is extremely dangerous.
I think of the comments earlier, suggesting that we have targeted provisions dealing specifically with nicotine and youth. There's no threshold here, to answer your question. I don't see any threshold on which, as a lawyer, I could go to court. Understand that the courts already say that the regulatory duty has.... They don't have any duty of care to the industry and the industry player. They wouldn't have any duty of care to a doctor or a patient. You basically have no threshold that we could realistically review. I see this as a blank cheque.