Parenteral use includes vaginal administration, so chloramphenicol suppositories fell within the exemption notification.

Vaginal suppositories containing chloramphenicol were treated as medicines for parenteral use for purposes of the exemption notification. The term "parenteral" was construed in its broader pharmacological sense, meaning administration by a route other than the alimentary canal, rather than being limited to injections alone. Because the product was administered through the vaginal route and bypassed the alimentary canal, it fell within the notification's scope. A narrow construction excluding locally applied medicines was rejected as inconsistent with the language and breadth of the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether vaginal suppositories containing chloramphenicol were covered by the exemption notification as medicines meant for parenteral use.

Analysis: The notification exempted patent or proprietary medicines containing the specified ingredient if they were for oral or parenteral use. The word "parenteral" was construed in its broader pharmacological sense as administration by a route other than the alimentary canal, and not as being confined to injections alone. The medicinal product in question was administered through the vaginal route and the relevant test was whether it bypassed the alimentary canal and entered the bloodstream directly. A narrow construction that excluded locally applied medicines would defeat the breadth of the exemption and was not warranted on the language of the notification.

Conclusion: The suppositories were held to be medicines for parenteral use and were therefore covered by the exemption notification.

---