The general prohibition on mail to veterinary medicine is hereby repealed. Will remain banned, but the first shipment of prescription drugs and medicines from animals.
The Federal Court lifted on appeal to the Court of Appeal ruling, which had been assumed that the prohibition laid down in the AMG is not constitutionally objectionable. If it were a professional career within the terms of Article 12 of the Basic Law, by sufficient reasons the common good is justified. The ban was to prevent the uncontrolled use of pharmacy-only medicines by farmers. The fact that stricter rules than medicines for human use was a problem for the judges of the lower court made in the light of past experience with drug residues in meat and the associated risks to consumers.
From the perspective of federal judges to get to a constitutional interpretation of § 43 para 5 AMG, however, to a different result. Let it not recognize the extent to which provision of § 43 para 5 AMG serves to protect human health if they also held for drugs not for nutritional purposes Pets inclusive, says the verdict. A failure of such medication by animals in the way of shipping lead-based medicines not to health risks for the population. Also, nothing indicated that the state goal of animal welfare (Article 20a GG) justifies the restriction of the pharmacists' professional activities. It must be particularly borne in mind that dogs and other non-food purposes by pets "overwhelmingly not purchase reasons, but - be included in the budget for ideological reasons - other than 'household'." Thus there is no danger of increased employment for reasons of excessive Medication. Although it is possible that a pet gets out of concern for his well being to many drugs - the same hazard but it also exists in human pharmaceuticals.
Cheap drugs related here!