I think we get ourselves into a bit of a bind here when we talk about professional reporting systems. Of course, it is a different situation when you have specified groups who are involved with the medical profession in a much more active way than, say, 98% or 99% of the population out there. I think the reaction of most people, when they take a drug that does something they don't expect it to, is to either call their pharmacist and say, “Hey, this happened, do I need to worry about it?”, or call their doctor, whichever one they can get hold of.
I think that needs to be the starting point. I don't think you need to stimulate that. People do that naturally. It becomes a means, then, of how to set up a simple reporting system—for pharmacists, for doctors, or for anybody else who may be the appropriate point of contact there—that allows them to determine, simply, is that report significant? Should it be carried out? Should I fill out a form and forward it to whoever the appropriate body is to collect and analyze that data? You have to have a reporting mechanism right down at that level.
In effect, it becomes mandatory. I don't think you have to legislate—i.e., if you don't report, we'll take away your licence. Instead, set up a system that allows it to be done simply, so that all this data can be collected. Indeed, sometimes it can be refined over time if it turns out you're getting a lot of reports, or maybe these things are inconsequential, or maybe they indeed do indicate something that needs to be made much clearer and apparent to all the practitioners and the general public.