Driving Ban Imposed on Pharmacist Over Traffic Violations--Authorities Suggest Use of Delivery Services

A pharmacist has been issued a four-week driving ban following a conviction for tailgating on the motorway towards Berlin. This penalty was enforced due to previous traffic infractions, in addition to a monetary fine. The pharmacist contested the driving prohibition, requesting a hardship exemption in exchange for an increased financial penalty. She argued her dependence on a vehicle for both personal and professional responsibilities, highlighting her role as a single parent of two minor children and her obligation to deliver essential medications, including controlled substances, to dialysis patients and palliative care recipients. Her annual mileage reportedly reaches up to 40,000 kilometers, primarily due to these urgent deliveries.

The pharmacist maintained that such deliveries are frequently unplanned and must occur on a 'just-in-time' basis, rendering long-term scheduling or reliance on public transportation impractical. She further contended that delegating these tasks to a courier is not feasible, particularly given the sensitive nature of the medications involved. Additionally, she asserted that aligning the ban with a prolonged leave of absence was impossible, as her presence is required in the operation of her pharmacy. The pharmacist also noted her reliance on a car for transporting her children and providing care for her elderly grandmother, who lives alone.

Despite these arguments, the prosecution remained unswayed. Authorities referenced two prior speeding offences that had occurred shortly before the current incident, emphasizing a pattern of violations. The prosecution also questioned the necessity for a licensed pharmacist to personally handle all medication deliveries, especially given the availability of online pharmacy services and third-party couriers in the modern era. From their perspective, the situation did not constitute an unreasonable hardship that would justify substituting the driving ban for an increased fine.

The pharmacist expressed dissatisfaction with the decision, citing concerns for patients in need of urgent medication, particularly those in palliative care who often require strong pain relief without delay. She maintained that relying on mail-order pharmacies would not sufficiently address the immediate needs of these patients. The legal process allows her to submit further statements to the court, with a final decision pending should she persist in her appeal.

In an ironic development, it was revealed that the pharmacist was en route to visit an employee hospitalized with long-term complications from Covid-19 at the time of the offence. Notably, this employee is responsible for delivery tasks within the pharmacy, underscoring the operational difficulties posed by the driving prohibition. The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by healthcare professionals balancing regulatory compliance with the critical responsibility of ensuring timely patient care.