Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[Q]: Paragraph: Half of EU states have designated long lists of drugs that cannot be exported during the coronavirus emergency. The lists include medication used to treat COVID-19 patients such as muscle relaxants, painkillers and hydroxychloroquine. “We ask that national governments lift any export ban on medicines. Such restrictions can lead to shortages elsewhere in the EU,” von der Leyen said in a statement. She also called on governments to avoid stockpiling. Bans are usually justified with the need to fulfil national needs, but Europe has so far faced only limited supply problems from the coronavirus crisis. Temporary shortages have been recorded mostly for drugs used to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients, such as anaesthetics, antibiotics and muscle relaxants that allow people to receive breathing support from ventilators. But national lists comprise many more drugs, including some that have wider uses such as the painkiller paracetamol and insulin, used by diabetics. The European Commission on Wednesday adopted new guidance on drugs supplies, which calls on governments to refrain from export bans and from requisitioning medicines. “Whilst it is understandable that countries wish to ensure the availability of essential medicines nationally, export bans are detrimental to the availability of medicines for European patients even when they are legally justifiable,” the non-binding document says. France, Poland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are among the EU countries with the longest lists of drugs which are temporarily banned from export. The bans apply mostly to distributors, which cover a large part of the EU market and provide the biggest share of supplies to pharmacies. The new guidelines also called on states to stop excessive stockpiling, which the Commission said could contribute to supply shortages. It warned the worst effects on supplies from stockpiling emerge when countries compete among themselves. The Commission is setting up an EU reserve of critical medicines and medical gear to address future needs. Claim: EU urges states to lift drug export bans to prevent shortages.
[A]: The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Wednesday urged European Union states to lift export bans on medicines to avoid causing shortages in the bloc as it tackles the coronavirus crisis.


[Q]: Paragraph: Interior minister Sajid Javid used an exceptional power on Saturday to release medicinal cannabis oil that had been taken from Billy Caldwell, 12, by customs officials at London’s Heathrow Airport. Billy’s mother, Charlotte Caldwell, had been pleading for the medication to be given back because without it her son suffered from life-threatening seizures. “This case .. has shone a light on the use of cannabis medicine in this country and highlighted the need for the government to explore the issue further, and our handling of these issues further,” said Nick Hurd, a junior minister in charge of policing. “As a first step, I can announce today that the government is establishing an expert panel of clinicians to advise ministers on any individual applications to prescribe cannabis-based medicines,” he told parliament. Under British law, cannabis is listed as a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it is not recognized as having a therapeutic value. Schedule 1 drugs can be used for research purposes and clinical trials but only under a Home Office license. “I recognize the need to ensure that the approach to licensing works more effectively,” Hurd said. Billy Caldwell had been receiving medicinal cannabis oil on prescription by his family doctor for more than a year, but supplies ran out after the interior ministry ordered the doctor to stop prescribing it. Charlotte Caldwell and her son, who normally live in Northern Ireland, made a round trip to Canada to buy more supplies, but the oil was confiscated by customs when they re-entered Britain. Billy was hospitalized days later, suffering from seizures. His condition improved after the medicinal cannabis oil was handed back and on Monday he was discharged from hospital. Several members of parliament from different parties voiced support for the Caldwell family and to the idea of loosening the rules on therapeutic uses of cannabis in responses to Hurd’s statement on Monday. Claim: UK signals changes on medicinal cannabis use after epileptic boy's case.
[A]: The British government will look into possible changes to rules on the use of cannabis-based medicines, a minister said on Monday, after an epileptic boy whose medication was confiscated was hospitalized.


[Q]: Paragraph: No discussion of costs – not of PSA testing nor of subsequent biopsies. These are big cost issues that warranted at least a line. The story states the 1 in 20 needing biopsy for total PSA vs. the 1 in 7 needing biopsy for PSA velocity. What the article doesn’t quantify is whether there would be fewer false positive findings if PSA velocity was ignored. Better job than its HealthDay competition in actually quantifying the impact on reducing unnecessary biopsies. The story didn’t do as good a a job as its HealthDay competition, which spelled out how men in the study were all from the placebo arm of a drug trial and which provided a bit more detail on the quality of the evidence. Neither story indicated that study subjects were highly selected– normal prostate exam and PSA < 3 as entry criteria. This is important information that may influence how generalizable the findings may be. No disease mongering here. The story included quotes from two independent sources. The HealthDay competition addressed in a much more explcit manner the option of not having the PSA test at all, when it reported: “Current American Cancer Society prostate screening cancer guidelines recommend that men make an informed decision with their doctor about whether to be tested for prostate cancer. “Research has not yet proven that the potential benefits of testing outweigh the harms of testing and treatment,” according to the ACS.” The story stated that most men over 50 get PSA blood tests. The story made it clear that the study was to examine the value in a common practice of doing a biopsy in men with a normal PSA level but in whom an increase in PSA has been detected. Did not appear to rely on a sole news release. Claim: Study: PSA rise not good prostate cancer predictor
[A]:
It did a better job quantifying harms, but a weaker job in evaluating the evidence. It also never addressed the option of not having PSA tests at all. Neither story addressed costs – a big issue given the evidence about unnecessary biopsies. This story focused on the study results, evaluating the value of tracking rising PSA levels. But it never dropped back to the big picture and never reminded men that NOT having a PSA test at all. The competing HealthDay story did, giving it a small but significant edge in completeness.