From Mr C. Anton
SIR,—Like Mr Walker (PJ, November 25, p789), I, too, am baffled by some of the decisions of the Statutory Committee. Mr Haider (PJ, November 18, p750) was struck off for driving while uninsured and disqualified, although there was no evidence that he was an incompetent pharmacist, and Mr Husseen (ibidp751, ) was struck off for misrepresenting his expenses, although again there was no evidence of incompetence alleged. Compare these two cases with that of Mr Thakrar (ibid,p751 ) who allowed his pharmacy to trade with an unqualified person in charge, who had unlabelled and inadequately labelled medicines on his shelves and who was reprimanded.
As a lay reader of The Journal, I find the apparent logic behind these decisions bizarre and worrying. They certainly do little to improve the public's safety and confidence in the profession.
Reports of Statutory Committee meetings are, of necessity, short. They are intended to apprise readers of the main points of evidence heard by the committee and the principal reasons for its decisions. It is never possible to report the entire proceedings. Readers can be reassured, however, that the Statutory Committee reaches its decisions after full consideration of all the evidence.—EDITOR.
Christopher Anton Administrative Co-ordinator, West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting, Birmingham