In psychiatry, the molecules available and the dosages recommended when a drug receives marketing authorization are not always adequate to treat patients with major behavioral disturbances. Off-label prescribing is frequent in this context, with regard to the indications and the dosages given as well as to the drug combinations used. However, if complications or death occur, the practitioner's liability may be engaged. The authors report three deaths attributed to off-label prescribing in psychiatry and which led to charges against the physicians. They review the precautions to be taken when prescribing in such conditions (no other possible treatment, existence of sound scientific evidence, consent obtained from the patient, or their legal representatives except in cases of force majeure) and the physician's liability if adverse events occur that could be attributed to off-label prescribing.

No abstract

Suicide is one of the principal causes of mortality in a prison environment. Although suicide by medication overdose is less frequent than suicide by hanging, self-strangulation, or vein cutting, it raises questions as to how the medications are obtained, particularly in view of the specific organization of the medication circuit in prisons. We present three cases of suicide by medication overdose involving different therapeutic classes with different distribution circuits and review the regulatory requirements and the measures that could be taken to prevent such suicides.

Misuse of medications can have major consequences for the consumer or patient's health. In the case of a drug delivered only on medical prescription, the misuse usually results from an error or negligence on the part of the prescribing doctor and/or the pharmacist dispensing the medication. But whereas, under French Law, doctors are regularly prosecuted for their irresponsibility, pharmacists frequently avoid any legal charges. This is even more surprising in view of the fact that French Legislation controls the practice of pharmacy very strictly. The authors discuss four cases that illustrate this issue and present a study of comparative pharmaceutical law requirements.

No abstract