The Society

Statutory Committee

Birthday drinks lead to reprimand
No action taken in “complex” Controlled Drug prescriptions case

Birthday drinks lead to reprimand

A Bristol pharmacist whose birthday celebration led to a drink-driving offence has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee. At its meeting on 13 March, the committee inquired into the case of Alistair Rea, of 96 Pembroke Road, Clifton, Bristol. Information had been received that at North Avon magistrates’ court, on 26 July 2000, Mr Rea had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of driving a car when over the prescribed limit for alcohol. A breath test had registered 78 micrograms in 100 ml. He had been fined £300, with £59 costs, and disqualified from driving for two years, the period to be reduced by six months if Mr Rea satisfactorily completed an approved course.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Rea represented himself at the inquiry.

The committee heard that on 21 July 2000 Mr Rea’s car had been stopped by police at 2.10am because its lights were not on. A breath test had proved positive, and the prosecution followed.

Disrepute

Mr Rea had been a preregistration trainee at the time and had since registered as a pharmacist. It was pointed out that the Code of Ethics and Standards stated that pharmacists “must adhere to accepted standards of personal and professional conduct and do not engage in any behaviour or activity likely to bring the profession into disrepute”.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), said Mr Rea had explained that, on the day of the offence, he had been playing football. As it was his birthday, his friends had persuaded him to go out later that evening; he had drunk a substantial amount of alcohol and driven in that condition. Such an offence was a serious matter, said the chairman, and it was conduct that made it open to the committee to remove Mr Rea’s name from the register.

Mr Rea had made an open apology to the committee and expressed his remorse. He regretted what he had done as an act of stupidity. The chairman pointed out that it was not part of the Society’s case that the consumption of alcohol on this occasion had affected his practice as a pharmacist.

In the circumstances, and having regard to the references on his behalf, the committee had decided that Mr Rea should be reprimanded.

No action taken in “complex” Controlled Drug prescriptions case

The Statutory Committee has decided to take no further action in the case of a pharmacist who had dispensed prescriptions calling for unusually large quantities of Controlled Drugs to be supplied to an addict.

At its hearing on 14 March, the committee inquired into the case of Brian Taliesin Jones, of Lewis’s Chemist, 2 Trafalgar Buildings, Bargoed, Mid Glamorgan. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that, between 1 February 1999 and 31 July 1999, prescriptions for a named patient had been dispensed from his pharmacy calling for quantities of medicines with a known potential for misuse; and that Mr Jones had admitted that he knew the patient did not require all the medicines supplied and was not consuming all of them. The Society alleged that that might constitute misconduct such as to render Mr Jones unfit to have his name on the register.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.

Mr Jones was present at the inquiry, and represented himself.

The committee heard that in the six-month period referred to, Mr Jones had supplied to the patient a total of 1,230 diazepam 10mg tablets, 25 diazepam 5mg tablets, 1,290 temazepam 20mg tablets and 2,130 dihydrocodeine 30mg tablets.

When interviewed by one of the Society’s inspectors, Mr Jones had explained that he had contacted the patient’s doctor about the prescriptions and told him of his concern that the patient, who was an addict, might be being bullied into selling some of the medicines; he had been trying to stop that. He had not contacted the police or other authority about the matter because he believed that would have breached his duty of confidentiality as a pharmacist.

Mr Jones told the committee that, separately from his work as a pharmacist, he was a trained drugs counsellor. He felt he had been acting “as best he could”.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the case was complex and difficult. It had led to consideration of the duty of confidentiality on the practising pharmacist. The chairman commented that he was not entirely comfortable that it was fully understood what was the extent of that duty of confidentiality, noting that there had been a change in the guidance given between the July 1999 and the July 2000 editions of “Medicines, ethics and practice: a guide for pharmacists”.

Admission

Turning to the allegation that Mr Jones had known that the patient had not required all the tablets, the committee found that that had not been established. However, he had admitted knowing that temazepam, diazepam and dihydro-codeine tablets were being diverted. Mr Jones could not escape from the knowledge that the drugs were not being consumed by the patient by saying that he had been trying to stop that. That part of the case had been established.

Regarding the ethical considerations raised by the case, the chairman noted the guidance given in ‘Medicines, ethics and practice’ (2000 edition) that “Many prescription-only medicines and Controlled Drugs have a potential for misuse or drug dependency. Care should be taken over their supply even when it is legally authorised by prescription or a signed order. A pharmacist should be alert to the possibility of drug dependency in ... patients and should be prepared to make inquiries to ensure that such medicines are to be used responsibly.”

While Mr Jones could not be said not to have taken care over the supply of the medicines, said the chairman, he should have been prepared to make enquiries to ensure that they were to be used responsibly. He could not avoid that requirement by saying that he believed some of the drugs were being taken away from the patient by bullying.

In that respect, the committee found that there had been misconduct by Mr Jones. However, the committee could not say that the misconduct was such as to render him unfit to be on the register. The situation, the chairman said, might have been different if both parts of the complaint against him had been established.

As that was not the case, the regulations prevented the committee from considering whether a reprimand should be administered.

The committee concluded that there should be no further action in the case.

The chairman added that it appeared to the committee that there had been some confusion of roles between Mr Jones’s responsibilities as a pharmacist and those as a drugs counsellor. He was advised to clarify the separation of those functions.