The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 264 No 7090 p512
April 1, 2000 Letters

Statutory committee

Unjust ruling

From Miss C. D. Realey, MRPharmS

SIR,-It is not merely when looking at inter-professional treatment that the striking-off of the pharmacist who stole compact discs appears harsh (PJ, March 25, p470). When reviewing previous Statutory Committee decisions this year, this ruling appears not just harsh but utterly unjust. For example:

• The sale of P and POM without supervision is simply "not the way a pharmacist behaves" (PJ, January 22, p128)
• Failure to dispose of four bags of unwanted drugs stored insecurely is "serious professional misconduct" (PJ, January 22, p129)
• Supply of Temgesic instead of temazepam, prazosin instead of Innovace and generic substitution was acceptable because there was "a lot of mitigation" (PJ, January 8, p53)
• Unsupervised P sales from non-registered premises is "serious professional misconduct" (PJ, January 8, p53)

These all contravene principles 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Ethics and yet none of the pharmacists involved is prohibited from practising.
There appears to be a double standard whereby non-adherence to fundamental pharmaceutical services is viewed leniently and yet a personal error reflects gravely on one's professional performance and capability. Protecting company profits appears to be of greater value than protecting the public from dereliction of duties.

Cal Realey
Reading, Berkshire