The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7151 p784-787
June 9, 2001

  Code of Ethics
  RPM
  Medicines promotion
  Parallel imports
  Patient packs
  Disillusioned youth
  Veterinary medicines
  Travel medicine
  Nurse prescribing
  Working conditions
  Mutual recognition
  Disinfection techniques

Parallel imports

Vulnerable elderly

From Mr M. A. Reynolds, MRPharmS

Following my original letter to you on labelling of parallel imports (PJ, April 7, p464), I have now received an answer to the written parliamentary question to which I referred. The question sought to ask the Secretary of State for Health if he would make it the policy of Government to seek to ensure that blister packs of medicinal tablets imported into the United Kingdom must have the day of the week identified in English.

The answer given was: “The requirements for the labelling of medicinal products are set out in Directive 92/27/EEC. Printing the days of the week on blister packs is not one of the requirements. In considering the proposals from importers for the labelling of imported products, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) must ensure that these comply with the terms of the Directive. If they do, the MCA cannot prohibit the importation of the products nor insist that where days of the week are present in a foreign language that they should be translated.

“It is therefore the policy of the MCA that where days of the week are present on the blister strip, to ask importers to provide a translation either on the labelling or within the patient information leaflet. In general the industry is co-operating with this policy.”

I can only assume from its formal parliamentary answer that the Government is saying “Let British people read Greek”, because it appears to state that it has no choice. Are there not proper mechanisms to amend any directive? I cannot believe that directive 92/27/EEC is written in such terms.

From its answer, the Government appears willing to accept that elderly, ill people may be confused by their medicines. Patients, particularly the elderly, have enough to cope with without the added stresses these “foreign language packs” exert.

The question of our MPs’ inability to translate real concerns into prompt action reinforces the argument that the overall interests of the British people are perhaps not being best served in the present situation. This raises two issues of general principle. The first concerns the drafting of the legislation by the EU, its interpretation, the process involved to correct errors and anomalies and the will-power of relevant bodies to perform the process. The second is the competence of the UK Parliament, in the interests of the British people, to make law, and its powerlessness to defy the majority view of other member states, particularly where qualified majority rules apply, even if it wishes. This is also true for other member states.

Under European law individuals can petition the EU. This I have done and have written directly to a European Commissioner.

M. A. Reynolds
Christchurch, Dorset

Previous Topic (Medicines promotion)
Next Topic (Patient packs)
Send your letter to The Editor