Knowledge Sharing on the Litigation on Cases of Health Products: The Case Study of the Provincial Public Health Office in Saraburi

Abstract

Objective: To conduct knowledge sharing activities among experts on the litigation on health products using the lawsuits of Saraburi Provincial Public Health Office as case studies. Methods: The researcher organized knowledge sharing activities among 21 experts through 7 meetings. The experts discussed on the case studies on 3 lawsuits, following complaints from public, having same defendant, same offence and same exhibits. The cases involved the selling of products with claims on healing, mitigating and curing diseases but without drug registrations from the Ministry of Public Health. The analyses of exhibits in the earlier cases found no modern medicines, leading the prosecutor to have no remark and indictment on the cases. Results: The results from knowledge sharing were used to create guidelines for classifying legal types of health products (exhibits). The exhibits should be classified as the types of products they were legally registered or approved. If the products were not legally registered or approved, classification should be based on the products’ intent or purposes. Therefore, the officers could classified a product without drug registration as drugs from its claims on remedy or having an effect on health, even though it was apparently food because laboratory investigation found no modern or traditional medicines. Furthermore, an exhibit legally registered as food product could be classified as food despite its claim on curing diseases. With the successful classification of exhibits as drug or food, the allegation based on the elements of violation of the Drug Act B.E. 2510 and the Food Act B.E. 2522 was possible, including selling unregistered drugs, drug advertising without approval from regulators, advertising to sell the drugs by showing the indications of relieving, mitigating or curing diseases or symptoms that were prohibited by the Minister and selling food with illegal labels showing false or deceiving statements leading to unreasonable belief or miscomprehension in the product essence. In addition, it was found that problems and obstacles in law enforcement arose from two factors. The first factor relating to the officers’ inadequate knowledge and skill in the litigation of the violation of health products laws leading to the problems in the classification of the exhibits, allegation and having a remark on cases. The second factor involved the delay of relevant agencies in analyzing and giving the remarks on exhibits. Conclusion: Knowledge sharing activities on the litigation of the violation of health product laws should be organized on a regular basis, and the obtained knowledge should be disseminated to officers working in the area.