Group items tagged

Today there is a lot of discussion all over the world, both offline and over the Internet, about mesothelioma. In the USA, there are mesothelioma campaign groups in almost every city in the USA. Besides discussion forums, mesothelioma legal cells, mesothelioma forums, mesothelioma awareness groups etc., today mesothelioma research is growing high by the minute.

California girls who dream about the sun-kissed skin glorified in song by Katy Perry will have to wait until they turn 18 before they can get the effect from tanning beds under a new first-in-the-nation law.

Surrogacy in Kenya, an unregulated surrogacy option in Africa. Although the cost of Surrogacy in Kenya is affordable, however, it comes with the risk of unregulated surrogacy territory.

Pharmacist supervision has been the subject of debate for as long as I can remember. Strikingly, no one is sure what supervision requires. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 say it is a criminal offence to sell or supply Pharmacy medicines or Prescription Only Medicines unless a pharmacist makes the sale or supply or, if the transaction is carried out by a non-pharmacist, that person acts under the supervision of a pharmacist. Over the years, some people have argued that supervision requires a clinical check. Others say it requires an accuracy assessment. Yet others have asserted that it requires a final check before a medicine leaves the pharmacy. Things are made more uncertain by the NHS terms of service which require prescription medicines to be supplied under the direct supervision of a pharmacist. No one knows what the word "direct" adds. The wording of the Human Medicines Regulations is not identical to the wording of earlier legislation. In particular, on the only occasions when the courts have been called upon to interpret the requirement for supervision, the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 was in force. In cases decided in 1943 and 1953, the courts decided that a pharmacist who was upstairs when a supply was made could not have been supervising; and that a sale was supervised by pharmacist standing at the cash desk because the pharmacist could intervene if a sale would not be appropriate.

Issues in Diversity and Cultural Competency Volume 4 is organized by Hatherleigh Medical Education. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Social Anxiety and More

Nearly 70 years ago the UK Government recognised the imbalance of power between commercial landlords and tenants and passed the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act), giving most commercial tenants a right of security of tenure. What is security of tenure? The Act grants tenants of business premises (so this would include pharmacy tenants) the right when the fixed term of their lease has ended to remain in occupation of the premises and the right to apply for the grant of a new lease. The landlord can only object to the grant of the new lease of the premises to the tenant, and therefore regain possession of the property on certain grounds set out in the Act. The parties to a lease can contract outside the provisions of the Act and where this is the case, a tenant would not have security of tenure. Most landlords will insist on no security of tenure where a lease is granted for a short term. As pharmacy leases have tended to be granted for longer terms (usually between 10 and 15 years) pharmacy tenants often have security of tenure. The Act sets out strict procedures which need to be followed to both contract outside the provisions of security of tenure and also to exercise the security of tenure rights granted by the Act. Pharmacists should take legal advice before agreeing to a pharmacy lease being excluded from the Act, and also at the end of their lease term whether or not they have security of tenure. If the lease is contracted outside of the Act, advice should be sought on agreeing new lease terms, if the pharmacist wishes to remain, as there will be no right to do so beyond the end of the lease term. If the lease is protected by the security of tenure provisions of the Act, advice should still be sought, as the Act prescribes a formal notice procedure that both the landlord and tenant must adhere to, before a new lease can be granted.

In many cases, a pharmacy's most valuable asset is its NHS contract. This is what buyers are paying for - the right to provide pharmaceutical services commissioned by the NHS and be reimbursed for the medicines dispensed. However, a pharmacy consists of more than just an NHS contract and when buyers look for a pharmacy to buy, they will also examine these other areas - the pharmacy's customer base, its staff, the property it operates from - to name a few - because these are all also crucial to a successful pharmacy. In this day and age, another important consideration is the pharmacy's intellectual property (IP) i.e. the pharmacy's rights to certain types of information, ideas, and forms of expression. At the most basic level, this includes the trade mark in the name of the pharmacy, because all pharmacies will have a name by which they distinguish themselves from other pharmacies. The more well-known the name, the more valuable this form of IP is - mention 'Boots', for example, and most will have an instant association with the largest pharmaceutical retailer in the UK.

The collapse of the three trading entities in the Converse Pharma Group (Testerworld Limited, Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Limited and Eclipse Generics Limited) (the Group) in May 2022 undoubtedly caused ripples throughout the pharmacy industry. The Group, a major supplier of pharmaceuticals, had a combined turnover over £300m, employed 1,000 staff members and supplied over 4,000 pharmacies throughout the country. The Group is licensed and regulated by the MHRA. At the beginning of 2021, a breach of the MHRA licensing regulations caused a temporary (but prolonged) cessation of trading. The Group was able to secure the ongoing support of its secured creditors during this time, however, when the licenses were subsequently reinstated, they came with restrictions. Unfortunately for the Group, the period of the suspension and the subsequent restrictions over the licences caused a significant reduction in revenue, from which the Group was unable to recover. Ultimately, by May this year, the companies in the Group had exhausted their working capital and had no prospect of raising the funding they required to continue to trade.

Legal Minefields in Medicine: Protect your career webcast provides powerful legal tips for healthcare professionals to protect their careers against liability

If you have been injured on someone else's property, you may be wondering what evidence is needed to win your case. Property owners are responsible for ensuring that their premises are safe for visitors, and if they fail to do so, they can be held liable for any injuries that occur. In this blog post, we will discuss the types of evidence that may be necessary to prove your case and win financial compensation for your injuries. 1) DUTY OF CARE The first piece of evidence that you will need to prove your case is that the property owner owed you a duty of care. This means that they were required to take reasonable steps to keep you safe from harm while you were on their property. If the property owner did not live up to this duty, and you were injured as a result, they can be held liable according to Carpenter & Zuckerman lawyers. To prove that the property owner owed you a duty of care, you will need to show that you were an invitee or licensee on the property. Invitees are people who are invited onto the property for business purposes, such as customers or delivery people. Licensees are people who are allowed onto the property for non-business reasons, such as social guests. If you were not an invitee or licensee, the property owner may not be held liable for your injuries.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have authorised community pharmacies throughout the UK to dispense original full packs of Valproate-containing medicines upon prescription. The necessary changes in regulations came into effect on 11 October which was strongly supported by 85 per cent of respondents concerned about risks to the unborn baby if valproate-containing medicines are used in pregnancy. The decision was made to ensure patients receive safety warnings and pictograms, including a patient card and the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL), contained in the manufacturer's original full pack. Valproate is a treatment for epilepsy and bipolar disorder but is also associated with birth defects and neurological disabilities.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has said that multi-buy deals on paracetamol violate the existing voluntary sales guidelines. The professional body is urging the government to pass legislation that prohibits retailers from making such offers on medicines for pain relief. They have also sent letters to MP Maria Caulfield who is the Minister for Mental Health and Women's Health. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is requesting to take action on the legislation at the earliest. The concern raised is that multi-buy offers such as 'buy one get one free' can encourage people to buy and store excess packs, which may lead to accidental or impulsive overdose.

In response to Thursday (5 January)'s announcement on the proposal of new 'anti-strike' legislation, the Pharmacists Defence Association (PDA) has said that it will work with other trade unions to defend the fundamental right for workers in the sector to strike. The association believes that "industrial action should always be a last resort, especially for health professionals such as pharmacists, however having the option to strike is a fundamental right for working people in a fair and free, civilised society." "The right to strike is a fundamental right through which employees can act collectively to secure and protect pay and conditions." It added: "The Trade Union Congress (TUC) are coordinating the challenge to these proposals." The TUC said in a statement: "The Prime Minister should concentrate on fixing our public services, not attacking public sector staff. The proposed legislation would make it harder for disputes to be resolved."