From Ms F. Chadwick, MRPharmS
SIR,—On October 8, I was listening to the "Legal Beagle" part of the Jimmy Young Programme on Radio 2.
A listener had sent in a letter asking if she could sue a pharmacist who had dispensed the wrong strength of a prescribed medicine. Briefly, she had taken a few doses, felt a little unwell and returned to the pharmacy. The error was discovered, corrected and the pharmacist apologised. The woman had suffered no harm. The legal advice given seemed fair and sensible, namely, that negligence had probably occurred, but since no harm had been done, no loss could be evaluated and so a court would be unable to find a basis for a claim for damages. The solicitor wondered why a sincere apology was not enough?
I was dumbstruck when some 10 minutes later Jimmy Young reported that the programme had received a call from a Royal Pharmaceutical Society inspector who had said that the pharmacist had committed an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1968, so action could be taken on this basis.
My impression was that the inspector was all too pleased to have the opportunity to make this comment and was effectively sanctioning further action against the pharmacist in question. The public in this country is becoming increasingly litigious without such comments being broadcast on prime-time radio.
I know of no other professional body that, rather than supporting its members in their increasingly stressful work, actually employs a "police force" travelling the country seeking out members who have been unfortunate enough to make errors. Does the British Medical Association behave like this? Do the various engineering institutions send out auditors to check quality assurance procedures? Of course they do not.
By all means maintain standards, stop the incompetent from practising, and expose gross misconduct. But please, stop making life difficult for honest, hard-working pharmacists.
Fiona Chadwick
Tiverton, Devon
Mr STEPHEN LUTENER (head of pharmacy law, Professional Standards Directorate, Royal Pharmaceutical Society) states: The inspector was concerned that the response to the query was factually incorrect and wrongly gave the impression that no one has concerns about dispensing errors where "no harm has been caused", so called the radio station.
An explanation was given of the Society's position. It was unfortunate that the announcement emphasised the enforcement role, rather than the Society's involvement in promoting safe systems of work.