Prescription remedies only with prescription

Verdict: Without prescription no prescription remedies

09/11/2015

If there is no prescription, pharmacists should not hand over prescription drugs to patients. Although it is sufficient in urgent cases, if the pharmacist is informed of the prescription by telephone, but the framework for this is according to a recent verdict of the Federal Court (BGH) according to very tight. If it is possible to see a doctor to obtain a prescription, the prescription will be prohibited without a prescription.

A pharmacist and a pharmacist faced each other in the proceedings at the BGH because the latter had handed over a prescription drug to a patient without a prescription. The plaintiff considered this to be a violation of the German Medicines Act (AMG) or the Ordinance on Drug Prescription (AMVV). The accused alleged that, on the basis of the information obtained by telephone from a doctor known to her, she was entitled to assume that she was entitled to deliver the drug without having presented a prescription, according to the BGH notice.

Lawsuit over all instances
While the district court had initially granted the claim essentially, the defendant was able to prevail in the appeal to the higher regional court. This was the opinion that the pharmacist was not entitled to give the drug without a prescription, because no urgent case in the sense of § 4 of the AMVV had existed. However, due to the one-time violation of the law, no consumer interests were noticeably impaired, in particular in view of the defendant's negligence.

Patient should have gone to the medical emergency service
In the new revision of the BGH has now restored the first instance conviction of the defendant, because the „According to settled case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, consumers' interests are always appreciably affected by regulations governing breaches of market conduct which are intended to protect the health of the population.“ The prescription according to § 48 AMG serves to protect patients from dangerous mistreatment medication and therefore health purposes. As at the time of the pharmacy visit for the patient no acute health risk had existed, a visit to the emergency medical service in the neighboring town would have been quite reasonable, so the statement of the Federal Court. (Fp)

Image: I-vista