Citation

Maatz KR. Blutalkohol 1999; 36(3): 145-158.

Affiliation

76133 Karlsruhe, Germany.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1999, International Committee on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety and Bund gegen Alkohol und Drogen im Straßenverkehr, Publisher Steintor Verlag)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The article deals with the question of whether it was factually justifiable to exclude the proper use of prescribed medicines which have a similar influence on driving ability as drugs, from the 'absolute driving ban' which was introduced on the 1st of August of 1998 as part of the revised version of the section 24 a section 2 of the StVG. To date, the area of application of the so called 'medicine clause' remains within the punishment gap. Its criminal law consequences are that the participation in road traffic 'under the influence' of psychotropic medicine until 'relative' driving inability can be proven, remains sanctionless within the section 316 StGB. Therefore effective information and rigorous caution is necessary when prescribing such medicines. As emphasised in the legislative proceedings, this is to 'avoid driving inability caused by the inadvertent, improper use of medicine at all cost'. In this connection, the civil law and possibly even the criminal law liability is examined as a 'supportive measure'. In the event of a claim after failing to inform the patient of the possible risks, this could affect both the doctor and the manufacturer. It would be justifiable not to generally sanction the driving of a motor vehicle under the influence of impairing medicines only if the patient, the doctor and the manufacturer each act responsibly with regard to the administration of medicines and their inherent risks.