SB 108-03: Off Label Use Is Ok Act (Vetoed)

[WD]

OFF LABEL USE IS OK ACT

Any pharmacist licensed in any Region in Atlasia shall be immune from civil liability or criminal prosecution for dispensing to a patient with a valid prescription, a prescription drug that has been approved as safe by the FDA, regardless of if the patient prescribed the drug is taking the drug for an off label treatment. This shall include but not be limited to Hydroxychloriquine and Ivermectin. This act shall take effect immediately.

Sponsor: West Midlander

The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

Amendment:

OFF LABEL USE IS OK ACT

Any pharmacist licensed in any Region in Atlasia shall be immune from civil liability or criminal prosecution for dispensing to a patient with a valid prescription, a prescription drug that has been approved as safe by the FDA, regardless of if the patient prescribed the drug is taking the drug for an off label treatment. This shall not include but not be limited to Hydroxychloriquine and Ivermectin. This act shall take effect immediately.

[WD]

24 hours to object

[Mr. Reactionary]

Seems a bit silly to carve out these 2 common medicines as being unprotected when pharmacists dont have any control over what a patient does. Especially when that treats those common medicines as worse than medical cocaine.

I object to the amendment.

[West_Midlander]

Thank you, Mr. PPT. This is common-sense legislation that should be passed immediately.

[beesley]

I disagree with the amendment for the same reasons as Mr. R, as the targeting of those two drugs strikes me as only for political reasons. As we are past the pandemic, I see no threat to public health messaging that would be created by failure to carve out those drugs.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I disagree with the amendment for the same reasons as Mr. R, as the targeting of those two drugs strikes me as only for political reasons. As we are past the pandemic, I see no threat to public health messaging that would be created by failure to carve out those drugs.

Especially since this does not itself authorize customers to engage in off-label use, drug manufacturers to market for off-label use, or doctors to prescribe for off-label use, other than what is already law under the "Right to Try Act of 2018". This is purely a liability shield for dispensing pharmacists so that they dont have to second guess a prescription they are filling. During the pandemic some pharmacists were worried about filling ivermectin or hydroxychloriquine for customers for fear it was to treat covid even though these medicines are FDA approved for many other disorders like parasites.

This bill is basically to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

[WD]

A vote is now open on the amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[Continential]

Nay

[beesley]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[S019]

AYE

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nay

[Saint Milei]

nay

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

Carve outs for politically motivate reasons become a slippery slope as such, and one could end up with endless justifiable situations that are more deserving of such, as was referenced above.

[WD]

Nay

[Left Wing]

Aye

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

Aye

[Joseph Cao]

Nay.

[Kuumo]

Nay

[WD]

Closing in 24 hours

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

Motion to table.

[West_Midlander]

Motion to table.

I object.