Plans to allow patients' prescriptions to be changed in the event of shortages under a no deal Brexit are set to be challenged in court.
Health campaigners claim newly introduced Serious Shortage Protocols (SSPs), which give pharmacists the power to change prescriptions, could cause serious problems for patients with serious long-term conditions - even proving fatal for some.
The new powers were introduced by the UK Government earlier this month but ministers have been accused of rushing them through without proper consultation.
Legal group The Good Law Project now plans to challenge the move in court on behalf of patients and will issue judicial review proceedings next week unless the government cancels the powers.
Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, said: "Both doctors and patients have proper concerns about their safety in the event of medicine shortages. We want the Government to withdraw the prospect of SSPs until it has complied with its legal duties and consulted properly on their use.
"If the Government does not take this step, the Good Law Project will launch judicial review proceedings in the High Court."
The protocols, which will only be used in exceptional circumstances, allow ministers to permit pharmacists to provide an alternative to the item prescribed.
However, the new powers have caused a split in the medical world.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) in Scotland describe them as a "sensible step as part of Brexit contingency planning", while the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges say it is "inexplicable and unacceptable" that they have not been the subject of wide consultation.
A range of health charities and patient groups, including those dealing with sufferers of diabetes, epilepsy and HIV have also raised concerns.
After facing pressure from epilepsy groups, the government accepted that replacement drugs were unsuitable for epilepsy patients, but pharmacists could still be allowed to reduce the strength or dosage of the medication.
Charities say this will still leave patients at risk.
Jane Hanna OBE, Chief Executive of SUDEP Action, who is supporting the judicial review, said: "Patients, doctors and pharmacists are used to prescriptions & the processes surrounding them.
"For people with long-term conditions, like epilepsy, what is on the prescription may represent months and years of trying out the best medication schedule. Changes made to this delicate balance can for some, undo this in an instant.
"For epilepsy this could lead to less seizure control, impacting on quality of life and significantly for some this can prove fatal."
She added: "We are leading a coalition of epilepsy charities who are extremely concerned that this new law has been rushed in with such speed and no one knows how patient safety will be properly protected.
"Lives cannot be risked because of short deadlines."
The National AIDS Trust is also concerned about the way and speed with which the new powers were introduced.
Deborah Gold, chief executive of the trust, said: "We are deeply concerned that these changes were made without proper consultation. Prescribing HIV medication is a complex process which must take account of a multitude of factors.
"The only person qualified to safely alter the medication prescribed to a person living with HIV is that person’s HIV consultant."
The UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said that SSPs would "allow our highly-trained pharmacists to provide an appropriate alternative should there be a shortage of certain types of medicines".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here