Pharmacist Bottroper sentenced to twelve years in prison – Panorama



[ad_1]

  • Botstoper pharmacist Peter S. was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment
  • The verdict mentions more than 14,000 drugs that have been significantly impaired in their quality.
  • Judges also imposed a lifetime ban on their profession


By Christian Wernicke Essen

In the mbadively adulterated anti-cancer drug scandal, the Essen District Court sentenced a pharmacist to twelve years in prison. The judges said in their decision that in Bottrop 's pharmacy the brewing solutions were stretched, but fully reimbursed by the health insurance.

The four defenders of Krebsmittel-Panschers had demanded an acquittal on Thursday for their client. They argued that the eight-month criminal process, despite extensive expertise and usually too weak, sometimes even completely ineffective, cytotoxic drug dosing for several thousand patients, provided no clear evidence of guilt. of their client. "As a result, we are as smart as we were at the beginning of the trial," said Ulf Reuker, Peter S.'s lawyer. The court's opinion was different. The judgment speaks of more than 14,000 drugs, the quality of which has not been significantly reduced. The judges also imposed a professional ban for life.

A second defense strategy was also not retained: the lawyers claimed that Peter S. was not really responsible for his actions because of a brain injury suffered there. At ten years the defendant, however, certifies full guilt – and the court reports that Peter S. had in his tests seem to simulate cognitive weaknesses and memory problems.

Panscherei with the system


000 cases of cancer drugs and so have played with the lives of patients. The case reveals serious deficiencies in drug monitoring.

Comment by Werner Bartens

more …


Peter S., who was 48 on the day of the sentence, was silent for the 44 days of the trial. Above all, he stared at his former patients, who were sitting in front of him as co-complainants. Thus, the question remained open on the grounds: why did Peter S. take the risk day after day of mistreating cancer drugs, recording them miserably or producing them in hygienically unacceptable conditions – as with his dog in the laboratory?

the damage to 17 million euros and badumed pure greed for his reader. Pharmacist Bottroper had also accused several victims' lawyers this week in their pleadings. Other interpretations were directed at her parents 'house: especially the defendant' s dominant mother, who now runs the pharmacy, forced Peter S., the heir to the family business, to practice a profession that was not her only business. he had never considered it.

The dock itself did not want to contribute to motivational research. When Presiding Judge Johannes Hidding gave him the last word on Thursday, Peter S. shot him the mic, hastily pressed the button – and then said, "I do not want to comment." Victims' lawyers call to contribute to education and so on by improving controls, other drug counterfeiters could in the future echo without echo.

That there are baskets of cancer "not only here at Bottrop" Renate Okrent convinced The 60-year-old woman, herself a cancer patient and former client of the accused, demands stricter controls, especially unannounced, from pharmacies likely to produce cytotoxic drugs in Germany Her colleague Christiane Piontek also badesses the verdict on Friday as a success for the victims.The cancer patients had organized vigils outside the pharmacy and protested against the Bottrop mayor, where the accused had long been regarded as a patron of the local hospice: "Without this pressure, we would not have reached this verdict."

Peter S. was found guilty of fraud and violation of the Drugs Act. A murder or other homicide can not be proven by the court: because no one knows exactly which patient received which therapy from the accused – and if he died for that same reason. Victims and survivors criticized the fact that important issues remained open in the district court's food court proceedings. Above all, it was not possible to determine how many patients received sub-medication. "15 years ago for the murder, so this punishment is closer now than I expected at the trial," says Piontek. Not all have witnessed this moment: A patient, also a co-complainant, lost her fight against cancer and pansher two weeks ago

Traffic without scruple of crab cancer drugs


This is one of the biggest medical scandals in Germany: due to greed, a man could have endangered about 5,000 patients. Victim advocates complain that he still does not stand for manslaughter in court.

By Christian Wernicke, Essen

more …


[ad_2]
Source link