The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7153 p852-856
June 23, 2001

  Medicines promotions
  GlaxoSmithKline
  Monitired dosage systems
  The Profession
  NHS
  Parallel trading
  Dressings
  Checking technicians
  Code of Ethics
  SGM
  Onlooker
  The Journal

Medicines promotions (2 letters)

Irresponsible behaviour

From Mr D. J. Savage, MRPharmS

The Law and Ethics Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should act quickly to censure the superintendent pharmacist of Boots the Chemists over the three-for-two sales promotion of Nurofen.

I have always understood that the interests of our customers must be paramount and that offering an inducement to buy more medicines than needed was unethical (not to mention irresponsible) behaviour.

How can our professional body reconcile blatant over-selling of ibuprofen (a medicine that started life as a prescription only medicine, was deregulated to pharmacy status before finally being thrown on to the open market as a general sale list product) with any attempt to adhere to our Code of Ethics and expect to retain any credibility with or respect from the rest of the membership?

John Savage
York

Locum services withdrawn

From Mr B. P. Patel, MRPharmS

In the light of the recent three-for-two offers on Nurofen and Rennie, superintendent pharmacists should be reminded that their primary duty is to ensure that pharmacists employed by the company are able to work legally, ethically and professionally. Their role is to put the patient first even when the push of the company’s marketing and sales divisions is for increased profits and market share.

I will definitely not be allowing bulk sales to be promoted in any pharmacy that employs my services. I have withdrawn my locum services to Boots the Chemists and, with appropriate notice, I have cancelled all existing bookings, because I cannot allow my professional standards to be compromised. I would urge pharmacists to consider fully the environment they are practising in and to remember that it is they who are in personal control of it. It would be our professional duty and right to take down inappropriate advertising materials while we are on duty, regardless of whether one is a locum or a permanently employed pharmacist.

The Code of Ethics offers guidance that has been endorsed and accepted by members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. If most members cannot accept the interpretations of the revised code then it is for us to raise our voices and ask for a revision.

As time progresses, we will be confronted by many problems if we do not take action now. Companies not willing to listen to their pharmacists must realise that there is no shortage of employers who offer their pharmacists professional conditions within which they can practise.

Brijesh Patel
Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey

Back to Top

Next Topic (GlaxoSmithKline)
Send your letter to The Editor