A Swansea pharmacist who was addicted to drugs, and who took diamorphine from the dispensary of the premises where he was employed, has had his name removed from the register, for a second time, by order of the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on September 28, 1999, the committee inquired into the case of Dr Dafydd Griffin Williams, at the time resident at "Ael-y-Bryn", 157 Bolgoed Road, Pontardulais, Swansea. Information had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging misconduct such as to make Dr Williams unfit to remain on the register.
Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee.
Dr Williams was present, and was represented by Mr D. Hutchinson, of Goldstones (solicitors).
The committee heard that while Dr Williams had been employed at the pharmacy of Mansell Jenkins Ltd, Gorseinon, Swansea, between March 23 and April 6, 1999, a stock check had revealed that 19 ampoules of diamorphine hydrochloride 30mg could not be accounted for. Dr Williams had admitted to the police on April 6, 1999, that he had taken between 10 and 20 ampoules of diamorphine hydrochloride 30mg and also a quantity of powder from two 2g containers of diamorphine powder; the diamorphine powder had been replaced with an inert powder.
Dr Williams had previously had his name removed from the register in May, 1995; it had been restored in October, 1996.
Dr Williams had written to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society explaining that, in 1994, following a period of drug addiction, he had entered a programme of recovery. After a time, believing himself to be free from addiction, he had discontinued the after care programme. As a result, he had relapsed.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that Dr Williams was a talented young man who had tremendous potential but he had an illness - an addiction to drugs. Following his removal from the register in 1995 his progress had been very good indeed; reports had been optimistic and the decision had been taken to restore him.
There had been a temporary relapse for two weeks in 1997 but he had got back on his feet again. Then, during a period beginning in March or April, 1999, Dr Williams had begun taking diamorphine ampoules and powder from the dispensary to feed his addiction. He would take diamorphine to the lavatory in the pharmacy, and heat it to inhale the fumes. In a short time he was taking up to three ampoules a day, then reduced to two.
The superintendent pharmacist, who had been very supportive to Dr Williams, found on a spot check that four ampoules of diamorphine were missing from the dispensary and immediately confronted Dr Williams. He had been able to return only three ampoules and had been ordered off the premises. Dr Williams had been frank about the matter and had gone to the police.
There had been a loss of 19 ampoules of diamorphine hydrochloride 30mg and a quantity of diamorphine hydrochloride powder from two 2g containers. Dr Williams had left in the containers another substance that gave the appearance of what he had taken out. While it had been said in mitigation that that particular compound would not dissolve in water and would have been obvious to the dispenser, it had been put there with the aim of deceiving. That was an utterly dishonest and deceitful practice.
This all amounted to a number of things. First, there was the theft, which was a criminal offence. Second, that theft had been from the superintendent pharmacist who had previously given him a fine reference. It also involved the taking of a dangerous Controlled Drug from the dispensary.
"There can be nothing as disgraceful as taking Controlled Drugs from a pharmacy when you yourself have the responsibility and duty to keep those drugs safe," said the chairman. Parliament had arranged that pharmacists took care of Controlled Drugs and therefore a pharmacist who abused that trust could only expect the epitaph that it was a disgraceful and unprofessional thing to do. There was also the deceit of ordering rather more diamorphine than was necessary for the patients, and substituting a compound for the diamorphine powder.
Dr Williams's actions had, in addition, let down the committee, said the chairman. They had been encouraged to think that Dr Williams had got a grip on himself and that he understood that his addiction was a lifelong illness. The offences had occurred after Dr Williams had stopped using the support system, including Narcotics Anonymous, that had worked well for him. In consequence, it was only a matter of time before the disease of addiction became active again. And an addict would get his supply by whatever means he could, regardless of the cost to himself and others.
Dr Williams had expressed an immense depth of shame over his actions. His medical report said that the prognosis was good, but he had to maintain his support systems constantly in order to achieve that prognosis.
The committee ordered that Dr Williams's name should be removed from the register. He had had three months to appeal against the decision.