Message boards index | Help | Search messages | Sign in


+ UKCAB + Public area + News, events, announcments + The Good Law Project judicial review over ‘No Deal’ Brexit medical shortages

The Good Law Project judicial review over ‘No Deal’ Brexit medical shortages

Print
Pages: 1

Roy Trevelion
BHIVA Reps
Posts: 332
The Good Law Project judicial review over ‘No Deal’ Brexit medical shortages
Posted on: March 18 2019, 07:42 am
Last edit: March 18 2019, 11:03 am

The Good Law Project has gone ahead with legal action against the government. This is a challenge to new powers designed to allow pharmacists to switch patients’ medicines if there is a shortage.

The Good Law Project say:

Quote
In our last newsletter, we told you that we had issued formal proceedings against the Government over its regulation enabling “Serious Shortage Protocols” (SSPs) that allow pharmacists - not doctors - to reduce amounts of medicine or prescribe different medicines if we have No Deal. We have now published, alongside our pleadings and witness statements, the Government’s response.   

Witness statements from Professor Chloe Orkin (Chair, BHIVA) and Deborah Gold (Chief Executive of NAT) are here:
https://goodlawproject.org/issued-proceedings-secretary-state-health/.

Chloe's statement includes this crucial point about SSPs:

Quote
We believe that there are significant risks associated with SSPs that could lead to serious harm and even death. Prescribing HIV treatment can be very complex and depends on a number of different factors including the type of HIV virus itself, the patients’ co-morbidities, co-medications, lifestyle and previous treatment history. HIV treatment has to be tailored to each individual patient and we recommend that each patient is involved in decisions about their treatment. We are concerned about the potential risks associated with SSPs including changing the dosage of medications, switching to alternative medications or formulations including generics, without the HIV team’s knowledge or input.

Deborah challenges the validity of the exceptionally short consultation period for this change in procedure and law:

Quote
The informal consultation [that] took place between only 5-12 December 2018, was extremely surprising. This is an exceptionally short period of time for such an important change in procedure and law, encompassing only a few working days, and meaning that even those invited to respond did not have time to seek input into their responses.

Should the CAB issue a statement supporting BHIVA, NAT and the Good Law Project?

You can support CrowdJustice here:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/not-ready-for-no-deal/

Thanks,
Roy
Logged

Print
Pages: 1

+ UKCAB + Public area + News, events, announcments + The Good Law Project judicial review over ‘No Deal’ Brexit medical shortages