Can UK doctors legally prescribe drugs online? The online pharmacy Kiwi Drug claims to dispense drugs legally from their online NHS-affiliated doctors, who prescribe drugs online. Kiwi Drug provides an online doctor service through its UK affiliate, which is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide prescriptions online. Prescriptions are dispensed by an NHS pharmacy regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council. Kiwi Drug's affiliate's doctors are GMC registered. Most are experienced GPs. They are all trained in providing prescription medicine online. The doctors are individually responsible for the prescriptions they issue. Registered pharmacists are responsible for dispensing. Assuming the pharmacy's claims are true, is it actually legal for a doctor to give prescriptions based on an online "consultation" in the UK?
Yes, this is correct. The Care Quality Commission is the regulatory body that oversees the adherence of private medical practitioners to health industry standards, regulations and laws. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 confers broad powers on the Care Quality Commission to regulate health and social care services. The The National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005 provides for electronic prescriptions to be issued. In the definitions: &quot;electronic prescription&quot; means an electronic prescription form or an electronic repeatable prescription ; &quot;electronic prescription form&quot; means a prescription which falls within paragraph (b) of the definition of &quot; prescription form&quot;; &quot;prescriber&quot; means a doctor, dentist, independent nurse prescriber or a supplementary prescriber; &quot;prescription form&quot; means- (a) a form provided by a Health Board, a Health and Social Services Board, a Local Health Board, a Primary Care Trust, an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust, and issued by a prescriber; or (b) data that are created in an electronic form, signed with a prescriber's advanced electronic signature and transmitted as an electronic communication to a nominated dispensing contractor by the ETP service, to enable a person to obtain pharmaceutical services or local pharmaceutical services, and does not include a repeatable prescription;
You missed a bit: Unless, of course, the patient was a private patient and the doctor accepted half a guinea for his trouble: As well as the state-run National Health Service (which is generally free to most patients) the UK also has a number of private health care providers where patients pay, for example, to be treated sooner than they would if they went with the NHS. Some NHS doctors also work on a self-employed basis in this private sector, called private practice, which creates the contractual relationship alluded to by Lord Devlin. Re: Don't NHS doctors receive consideration, even if patients don't pay? Yes they do. But not from a (non-private) patient - they are paid by the NHS (or related entity). There are different contractual relationships available, such as being on a salaried payscale or in a partnership but all remuneration comes from the NHS.
Doctors are obliged to act in the best interest of their patients. If it would be in your best interest to see another doctor (due to the doctor being out of practice for that particular diagnosis), your current doctor would be obligated to tell you and refuse treatment. The physician‑patient relationship is fiduciary in nature and certain duties arise from that special relationship of trust and confidence. These include the duties of the doctor to act with utmost good faith and loyalty[.] MvInerney v. MacDonald Now, onto your question about the counselors assessment; probably not worth it's weight in salt. They likely have little to no training regarding diagnostic medicine and are by no means an expert.
In the united-kingdom it is a breach of the 2021 UK Anti-Doping Rules for an athlete to have a &quot;Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers&quot; in their sample. No mention is made, as far as I can see, that the intent to use a placebo as described by the OP would fall foul of these Rules. The only relevant mention of intent seems to be when the substances etc are present: It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body. An Athlete is responsible for any Prohibited Substance or any of its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Sample. Accordingly, it is not necessary to demonstrate intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part in order to establish an Article 2.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violation; nor is the Athlete's lack of intent, Fault, negligence or knowledge a valid defence to an assertion that an Article 2.1 Anti-Doping Rule Violation has been committed.
.. if a EU country decides that the vaccine should be mandatory, especially when they promised again and again it would not be compulsory, wouldn't that raise law-related problems? Is it legal? Yes, it is legal since public health is classified as a shared competence where the European Union does not exercise its own competence and therefore within the competence of a member state to decide. Supporting public health in Europe EU health policy focuses on protecting and improving health, giving equal access to modern and efficient healthcare for all Europeans, and coordinating any serious health threats involving more than one EU country. The European Union coordinated the creation and implementation of the EU Digital COVID Certificate, but it is up to the member states to decide under what conditions (and to whom) a certificate is to be issued and used. (shared competence) Protection of health, due to experiences of the past, is often considered (depending on the jurisdiction) a major task of national governments. During the Black death (where no vaccination was available), many countries took extreme measures to protect their population. Although the concept of isolating people to prevent the spread of disease had already existed, the term quarantine originated during this period. Since the early 19th century (1807 in Bavaria), some countries imposed compulsory vaccinations to eradicaticate smallpox where it was deemed as a danger to the whole population. History has shown, when faced with no other choice, a country will exercise any extreme measure needed for the benefit of their population. Division of competences within the European Union ... The EU has only the competences conferred on it by the Treaties (principle of conferral). Under this principle, the EU may only act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the EU countries in the Treaties to attain the objectives provided therein. Competences not conferred upon the EU in the Treaties remain with the EU countries. ... Exclusive competences (Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — TFEU) areas in which the EU alone is able to legislate and adopt binding acts. EU countries are able to do so themselves only if empowered by the EU to implement these acts. ... Shared competences (Article 4 of the TFEU): the EU and EU countries are able to legislate and adopt legally binding acts. EU countries exercise their own competence where the EU does not exercise, or has decided not to exercise, its own competence. ... Supporting competences (Article 6 of the TFEU): the EU can only intervene to support, coordinate or complement the action of EU countries. Legally binding EU acts must not require the harmonisation of EU countries’ laws or regulations. ... ... Due to the smaller amount of Exclusive competences in important areas, the European Union is more of a Confederation than a Federation (such as Canada and the United States). Sources: Division of competences within the European Union EU Digital COVID Certificate | European Commission Confederation - Wikipedia Federation - Wikipedia
This article from 2007 indicates radio frequency identification microchips are not considered medical devices by Health Canada's Therapeutic Drugs Directorate, so there's no requirement to obtain licences for their sale or use. Health Canada spokesperson Carole Saindon says the devices do not have a therapeutic use, so they fall outside the ambit of the Food and Drugs Act. “Health records, or the mechanism by which they are stored or retrieved, are not considered to be medical devices,” says Saindon. Because this microchip technology is unregulated, it isn't known whether any Canadian facilities have implanted chips in humans. If it were positively required that the device be deemed to have therapeutic device in order for it to be legal to implant, then they would have said that the chip can't be implanted in Canada. It seems that there are no direct restrictions against chipping people in Canada, therefore a doctor may legally do it.
You must follow the lawful and reasonable directions of your employer As an RN you have obligations under the law that are independent of your employment. Almost certainly, one of these is not to practice in an area which you are not skilled or qualified to do so (unless you are under adequate instruction and supervision). Remember, as an RN you, personally, are legally responsible if your advice leads to harm and you were not acting reasonably. There are plenty of nurses who have gone to jail for delivering a lethal dose of medicine that was wrongly prescribed by a doctor. Even if your advice is unlikely to lead to this, you can still be deregistered - seems a waste of a lot of education just to become an Uber driver. Further, most jurisdictions make it illegal to mislead or deceive in trade or commerce. This one won’t send you to jail. So, it appears that the instructions are unlawful and it is not misconduct if you were to, politely, refuse them. This would not give your employer grounds to fire you. However, you should document your concerns and reach out to your union and possibly consult a lawyer.
I think it really is a state-by-state answer. From a web site for doctors getting involved in Telemedicine. Some medical boards such as Alabama, Montana and Oregon offer a special purpose telemedicine license. Other states that regulate telepractice in medicine include Texas, Florida, California and Colorado. The levels of regulation vary greatly by state. For example, California and Florida, similar to New York, require full licensure to perform any function relating to patient care, with some exceptions for consultation in some instances. Other states are exploring the issue of telepractice and in general, how to regulate it. That site has a state-by-state break out of the rules. I see other things about reciprocity among some nearby states. Three states (MD, NY, VA) and Washington DC provide reciprocity to bordering states. Alabama and Pennsylvania have agreements with other states to grant licenses to out-of-state physicians who have licenses in states that reciprocally accept their home state licenses. In Connecticut, an out-of-state physician can obtain an in-state license based on his or her home state standards.