The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7152 p815-820
June 16, 2001

  RPM
  In-store pharmacies
  Pharmacy medicines
  Patient packs
  The Profession
  Future of pharmacy
  Coronary heart disease
  Influenza
  Checking technicians
  Dianette
  Paracetamol
  Monitored dosage systems
  Disillusioned youth
  Code of Ethics
  SGM
  Disposal of medicines
  Separate register
  Onlooker
  The Journal

Pharmacy medicines

Beware of consumer “researchers”

From Mr J. Ferguson, FRPharmS

A completely new Code of Ethics was adopted at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual general meeting on May 16 (PJ, May 26,p710). The code (Part 3, 3[a]) includes the statement “Pharmacy medicines must not be accessible to the public by self-selection”. The PJ report indicates that I asked a question on this very part. Bill Darling replied that if the Council considered before the next AGM that any change to this was necessary, “the membership and the organisations representing pharmacy should be totally involved in that decision”.

“Numark to test self-selection of medicines” was the headline on p737 of the very next issue of the PJ! That report also stated that Numark’s protocol had been “approved by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society”. That would surely come as a surprise to those who attended the AGM or read the report.

I realise that there are controls within the Numark model — one till, signs to “warn customers that they will be asked about the medicines they are buying”, etc. That reminded me about the parallel “controls” under the old Code of Ethics, inserted when a multiple chain wanted to introduce self-selection for general sale list products, controls that, in theory at least, continued until the adoption of the new Code of Ethics on May 16.

The background was that the Council of the day was considering not allowing preregistration training to take place in a pharmacy where medicines were sold by self-selection. The multiple produced a scheme under which, as the guidance in the old code stated “the customer is guided to a designated service point manned by a suitably trained assistant” and “prominent notices inform would-be purchasers to pay at a designated point within the professional area”, and if that point was unmanned, “a notice at that point should direct that purchases be taken to the counter at which medicines are sold”. Has anyone seen any such notices recently or found it difficult to pay at the ordinary check-out point? The “controls” applied for a very short time.

I realise, of course, that circumstances change and it will be argued that following the demise of resale price maintenance, pharmacists must compete by open display of the medicines that only they can sell. But how long will it be before “researchers” from a consumer organisation are able to buy pharmacy medicines by self-selection, without any questions being asked? The question that will undoubtedly follow will then be, why should any medicines be restricted to pharmacies for retail sale?

John Ferguson
Haywards Heath, West Sussex

Previous Topic (In-store pharmacies)
Next Topic (Patient packs)
Send your letter to The Editor