{"id":6960,"date":"2015-01-02T18:13:29","date_gmt":"2015-01-02T17:13:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/?p=6960"},"modified":"2015-01-02T18:56:30","modified_gmt":"2015-01-02T17:56:30","slug":"medicinali-troppo-costosi-chiesta-la-condanna-per-7-medici","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/medicinali-troppo-costosi-chiesta-la-condanna-per-7-medici\/","title":{"rendered":"Medicines too expensive, condemnation requested for 7 doctors"},"content":{"rendered":"

Livorno, are accused of economic damage to the ASL for prescriptions made between 2009 and 2011. Now there is waiting for the decision of the Court of Auditors<\/p>\n

\"\"LIVORNO. Sentence requested for seven Livorno doctors. The first trial against the doctors called to answer for economic damage caused, with gross negligence, to the Local Health Authority of Livorno for having prescribed to their patients, from 2009 to 2011, medicines was staged before the Jurisdictional Section of the Court of Auditors of Tuscany , with a patent still valid, rather than those with an expired patent, so-called "generic" or "equivalent", having a lower cost, to a greater extent than the average volumes processed by the ASL itself on the basis of parameters indicated by the regional council .<\/p>\n

In general, these were drugs for hypertension, gastroprotectors, for osteoporosis and fractures, antidepressants, against hypercholesterolemia. The defendants were defended by the lawyer\u00a0Antonio Bellesi\u00a0<\/strong>of Livorno,\u00a0Simon Zani<\/strong>\u00a0from Florence,\u00a0Michela Antinucci\u00a0<\/strong>From Rome. The disputes referred to in the writ of summons, borrowed from two reports by the Nas, were supported by the Attorney GeneralLetizia Dainelli<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The defendants stressed that in order to be able to speak of gross negligence, proof must be given that the doctor has "failed to take action as even the least well-equipped of those carrying out a given activity would take action, in the same situations". This is why the Public Prosecutor's Office should have demonstrated, patient by patient, that "the doctor recklessly prescribed patent medicines while alive, without assessing the particular subjective situation of each one and emphasizing that the damage cannot be considered proven by exceeding abstract statistical averages, taking into account I also realize that the audience of patients and related pathologies is very different from one doctor to another\u00bb.<\/p>\n

The Prosecutor concluded by asking for each doctor to be sentenced to the compensation requested while the defenders concluded for the acquittal or alternatively for the admission of an expert who ascertains the appropriateness of the prescriptions as well as the possible precise consistency of the damage".<\/p>\n

Note: Doctor's code of ethics<\/a><\/p>\n