An Oxford pharmacist has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee after neglecting to dispose of a large quantity of obsolete medicines from domestic premises.
At its meeting on August 12, 1999, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Michael John Proctor, of Northway Pharmacy, 53 Westlands Drive, Headington, Oxford. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society that four refuse sacks containing very large quantities of prescription only and other medicines, some of which had deteriorated badly, had been found in the garden of a house formerly owned by Mr Proctor. Some of the medicines appeared to have been dispensed to patients.
It was alleged that Mr Proctor's actions in storing drugs or permitting them to be stored at a residential address and his failure to take proper steps to ensure the prompt and safe transportation and/or disposal of obsolete drugs might constitute such conduct as to render him unfit to be on the register.
Mr D. Bradley, of counsel, and Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
Mr Proctor was present and was represented by Mr M. Aaronberg, of counsel, instructed by Charles Russell (solicitors).
The committee was told that Mr Proctor had sold the house that had been his home for some years and the purchaser had found the sacks covered with leaves in the garden. On examination, he had discovered they contained medicines and reported the matter to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. One of the Society's inspectors had visited the property to examine the medicines.
He had then interviewed Mr Proctor, who told him that the medicines had accumulated over a number of years and had been stored in his garage at the house. Some had already been present when he had bought the property from another pharmacist. Some had been added when Mr Proctor bought a pharmacy with a warehouse containing older drugs. When Mr Proctor eventually came to sell the house, he had arranged for a handyman to remove to his pharmacy the sacks containing the discarded medicines; from there they were to be collected for disposal. The handyman had also been instructed to remove some similar sacks containing garden refuse.
However, Mr Proctor thought, with hindsight, it was likely that some of the sacks containing garden refuse had become mixed up with those containing drugs, although the handyman had said that he believed he had put all the bags containing medicines into his van for removal to the pharmacy.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that when Mr Proctor had bought the house, in 1981, he had found in the garage a number of medicines which had come from the pharmacy which belonged to the seller, which Mr Proctor had also bought. Mr Proctor accepted that by purchasing the property he became responsible for them. Other medicines, mainly outdated or patient returns, had been added from a pharmacy which Mr Proctor bought a year or two later. Although he had made some inquiries about disposing of the medicines, he had not pursued the matter.
There was a great variety of medicines found in the bags and a fatal overdose could have resulted if someone had taken them. Medicines were dangerous in the hands of uninformed people, in particular, children. That was why pharmacists had been given control over them, said the chairman.
Mr Proctor knew he should have disposed of the medicines, and should have done so long ago. He had waited far too long with the medicines sitting in the garage. The committee did not think he had made sufficient inquiries from a proper source at an early enough stage. He had got rid of the medicines by instructing a handyman who was unsupervised during the operation. Mr Proctor had not checked that all the bags of medicines had been removed, nor at the pharmacy to see that all the bags had arrived. How the bags had got in the garden, where they had been found, was an open question. They could have been rummaged through by children, with catastrophic results, or by pets.
The committee found that Mr Proctor's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and directed that he should be reprimanded.