CHEMIST FINED

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27213, 3 December 1953, Page 3

CHEMIST FINED

DRUGS SOLD WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION

MINIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED

(New Zealand Press Association) ' HASTINGS, Decemebr 2. The belated signing by doctors of • telephoned and repeat prescriptions ■ was criticised by Mr W. A. Harlow, S-M., in the Hastings Magistrate’s Court today, when Miriam Josephine Hunter, a chemist (Mr W. E. Leicester, of Wellington) was charged with sel-| ling drugs without a prescription. The defendant was convicted and fined the minimum of £.12 10s. without costs. TT F ° r he National Health Board, Mr H. C Sproule (Napier), said that Mrs Rita May Davidson died on July 9 after a self-administered overdose of sleeping tablets bought the day before from the defendant. He said that Mr Davidson had asked for a repeat of tablets that Dr. J. M. Tyler, of Hastings, had prescribed for her on July 1. The defendant had supplied 15 of one type of tablet and 60 of another, both of which were derivatives of a poison scheduled in the i Poisons Act. Counsel added that a prescription , was written and signed by Dr. Tyler i after the inquest on July 27 so that the defendant could claim social security ! payments. I An officer of the Department of Health at Lower Hutt, J. I. Ashforth, I said in evidence that the prescription for July 8 was written on paper belonging to the defendant’s pharmacy. To Mr Leicester he said that the defendant’s returns to the department showed that she was a most thorough and careful chemist. He agreed with counsel that though the regulations said that a doctor must confirm and sign the prescription within two days of telephoning it to the chemist, some doctors were not always prompt in doing so. The Chemists’ Service Guild had protested to the department about the laxity of observance of the regulations. Doctor’s Evidence Dr. Tyler said in evidence that he ordered the tablets on July 1, but had not authorised a repeat and did not see Mrs Davidson again. He said he signed the prescription after the inquest as the defendant had described . the signing as being just routine. ; The practice was for a telephone prei scription to be sent to a doctor and signed and returned. In the case of ' poison it was usual for the patient to > sign a blank form which. was subse- | quently filled in according to what was I telephoned. i The Magistrate: That means that : the patients did not know what they j were signing for. ■ The witness said that had the patient telephoned him for a repeat he would I have authorised it. i The Magistrate: Are the Hastings doctors now complying with the reguI lations? I The witness: Yes. There has been a I general tightening up since the inquest, i Mr Leicester said it was distressing that the defendant had been singled I out. She had been a victim of a sysI tern known to the department, acquj iesced in by doctors, and objected to by chemists. I Evidence was given that it was often ' weeks before a doctor signed some of i the prescriptions. The Magistrate said that on her own evidence the defendant must be convicted. “In view of the deplorable practice that has been existing, it is perfectly clear that she sold drugs without a nrescrintion.” said the Magistrate. “I am inclined to agree that Hunter was a victim of a system, and think she is no more guilty than the doctor.” He added that the case could not be dismissed as trivial, and as there was a minimum fine he honed that “the 1 doctor will see that the blow does not , fall too heavilv on the defendant.”