The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7237 p285-287
22 February 2003

Temazepam theft leads to striking off [more]

Pharmacist reprimanded over offensive letters [more]

Restoration after undertaking to meet high practice standards [more]

Name restored to register after overcoming alcohol problem [more]

Reprimand for pharmacist guilty of alcohol-related misconduct [more]

Temazepam theft leads to striking off

The Statutory Committee has ordered that a pharmacist who had stolen temazepam elixir and had disposed inappropriately of patient returned medicines should be struck off after he had failed to comply with conditions imposed by the committee at an earlier hearing.

At its meeting on 14 October 2002 the committee resumed its inquiry, adjourned from 21 May and 19 June 2002, into the case of Neil M. Henderson, of Flat 2, 1 The Square, Northam, Bideford, Devon

A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Henderson's admitted theft of a bottle of temazepam elixir, for which he had received a police caution, and his failure to deal in an appropriate manner with medicines returned by patients amounted to misconduct such as to render him unfit to have his name on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) attended all three meetings to present the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Henderson was present, and represented himself, at the meeting on 21 May 2002; he did not attend, and was not represented at, the resumed inquiry on either date.

At the meeting on 21 May 2002 the committee heard that on 3 August 2000, following an allegation made by the pharmacy company for whom Mr Henderson had been working as a locum pharmacist, the police searched his then home on a warrant. Mr Henderson was not present. Among the items found were eight Lamisol tablets and a bottle of temazepam elixir. Subsequently Mr Henderson was arrested on suspicion of theft. In a police interview, he said the items were patient returns which had been given him as he was locking up the pharmacy and he had taken them home.

On 10 January 2001, Mr Henderson had admitted theft of the temazepam elixir and been given an official caution.

At the conclusion of the first hearing, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Henderson's motives in stealing the temazepam elixir were far from clear. He had denied consuming any of it and there had been no indication of the quantity remaining in the bottle. The committee was therefore unable to conclude that he had in fact been consuming the elixir.

Coupled with the theft was the allegation that Mr Henderson failed to deal with patient returns in an appropriate manner. Mr Henderson had acknowledged that he knew what should be done with patient returns, and that he had not done disposed of them accordingly.

Misconduct such as to render him unfit to be on the register had thus been proved.

Alcohol problem

Evidence had also been given that Mr Henderson had an alcohol problem of long standing. His name had been removed from the register on a previous occasion for reasons directly relating to alcohol dependency. It was not as clear in the present case that alcohol dependency had led to the misconduct. However, he had acknowledged that he had suffered some relapse in his abstinence from drinking.

Before making its decision, the committee would require further information. The appropriate course was to adjourn the case until later in the year, said the chairman, when the committee would want to see a report from Mr Henderson's doctor, a report from an experienced counsellor on dependency problems and references from those who had employed him. Mr Henderson would also have to undertake not to practise as a pharmacist during the period of the adjournment.

When the hearing was resumed on 19 June 2002, the committee was informed that a letter had been received from Mr Henderson on 17 June 2002 in which he undertook not to practise as a pharmacist during the period of the adjournment and that he was endeavouring to obtain the required reports and references.

At the resumed hearing on 14 October 2002, the committee heard that Mr Henderson had written a month earlier to say that he would not attend the hearing and that he had not been able to obtain the required references and reports. He had also stated that on 2 August 2002 he had been convicted of drink driving at Barnstaple magistrates' court and had received a three-year driving ban and eight months' probation.

The committee ordered that Mr Henderson's name should be removed from the register.

He had three months in which to appeal.

Back to Top

Pharmacist reprimanded over offensive letters

Offensive letters written to the editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal have resulted in a reprimand from the Statutory Committee for the pharmacist concerned.

At its meetings on 23 and 25 July and 16 and 17 October 2002 the committee inquired into the case of Kirtikumar T. Patel, of 298 Kingston Road, Ilford, Essex. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that he had written inappropriately to the editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal, Olivia Timbs, a number of letters that did not conform with accepted standards of personal and professional conduct and that this might demonstrate that Mr Patel had been guilty of misconduct such as to render him unfit to have his name on the register.

Fenella Morris, of counsel, instructed by Penningtons (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case.

Mr Patel was present at the hearings and was represented by Jane Deighton, of Deighton Guedalla (solicitors).

The committee heard that Mr Patel had written a letter on 20 May 2001 which read, in part: "The fate of Mr — Shah is of grave concern to black pharmacists. His crime is to voice the concern of his community in Bradford. A minority within a minority. Today it is Mr Shah. Tomorrow it will be Mr Levy or a muslim woman who refuses to dress from head to toe. Should the national pharmaceutical associations in Germany and Austria have remained silent when Jewish pharmacists were being attacked?"

A second letter, written on 7 August 2001 said: "Does the Pharmaceutical Society approve of a campaign of racial hatred orchestrated by a white pharmacist owner against a black pharmacist locum employed through a locum agency in Rainham? The white pharmacist owner feels sexually inadequate when confronted by a black pharmacist. I am willing to deconstruct the white pharmacist owner for the benefit of black pharmacists."

Then, on 20 August, Mr Patel had written: "Thank you for not publishing my letter in the trade magazine. The association of petty shopkeepers should address the issue of horrifying racial experience endured by black pharmacists at work and patients including asylum seekers. You do it to us because a black is classified below the Pan paniscus (Pygmy chimpanzee) in the white Darwinian scale of values. There will come a time when the white skin is a liability and not an asset."

A further letter, sent on 16 November 2001 and marked "Private", included the statements: "'Onlooker' and Nancy Mitford, Frau Olivia Timbs, should discuss white lying as a moral choice. It is appropriate in the case of Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan have suffered because of the great game played by whites who rank the black native below the Papio hamadryas (Hamadryas baboon) in the white Darwinian scale of values. Please continue the game so that there comes a time in history when the white skin is a death sentence in the agriculture districts of Europe."

Finally, a Christmas card sent in December 2001 said: "To Frau Olivia Timbs. Please read and digest the black bible, Yours etc Mr Lester Young, née Mr Kirtikumar Thakorbhai Patel". Enclosed with the card was a copy of a book, 'The wretched of the Earth' , by Frantz Fanon. The word "violence" on the back cover of the book was underlined.

The committee rejected a submission on behalf of Mr Patel that there was no case to answer.

The committee was told that although Miss Timbs had found the first letter unsuitable for publication, she saw nothing offensive in it. She had, however, become increasingly concerned by the tone of the subsequent correspondence. After seeking other people's views, she had eventually decided to refer the matter to the Society's Professional Standards Department.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Miss Timbs, who was not a pharmacist, was the editor of the professional journal published by the Society, Mr Patel's professional body.

Mr Patel had every right to disagree with her editorial policy, with the views of the Council or any contributor to The Pharmaceutical Journal. Miss Timbs did not dispute that, nor had she attempted to silence him beyond exercising legitimate editorial control.

Offensive

However, said the chairman, as a professional man writing to the editor of his professional journal, Mr Patel should not have done so in an offensive manner. In the committee's view, Miss Timbs's reaction to the letters was not unreasonable. It had been extraordinarily insensitive to send a book in which the word "violence" had been underlined.

He continued: "The words used by Mr Patel in these letters are offensive and were, not surprisingly, understood as such". They were repeatedly threatening, sometimes in the most unacceptable fashion, and generally offensive in a manner the committee could only conclude was intended.

Mr Patel may have suffered racial abuse, said Lord Fraser, but it could not be appropriate for a professional man to respond to abuse by being abusive to one who had done him no harm, or expressed no hostile intention to him or shown any contempt for the colour of his skin. He should have known that writing in such terms fell well below the appropriate standards of personal and professional conduct.

Mr Patel, however, insisted at the hearing that he did not understand that and still seemed to insist that what he wrote was not offensive, nor intended to be. Yet in a report, prepared a month previously, a consultant psychiatrist had said: "Mr Patel believes that he has caused insult to the editor and for this he apologises." The psychiatrist had said in evidence that he was "concerned" by the letters. The report also said that the circumstances leading to the letter-writing behaviour were unlikely to recur.

The chairman commented that Mr Patel had, unfortunately, previously suffered from mental illness, resulting in his removal from the register. It might have been argued that he was not responsible for his own actions. However, that had not been argued. The psychiatrist's report said that Mr Patel showed no evidence of mental disorder at interview and there was no reason to believe that he had displayed the features of mental illness since his discharge from treatment in 1998. It was clear that Mr Patel had to accept responsibility for his actions and for the words he had used.

The circumstances of his previous removal were far removed from the present case and were not relevant, said the chairman.

Supportive references were presented on Mr Patel's behalf, but the committee ruled that he should be reprimanded for his misconduct.

Back to Top

Restoration after undertaking to meet high practice standards

The Statutory Committee has restored to the register a former pharmacist whose name was removed three years ago for consistent poor standards of practice.

At its meeting on 15 October 2002, the committee considered an application for restoration to the register by Mohammed Y. Sohawon, of 415 Charles Road, Birmingham, who had been removed from the register on 20 October 1999 for his consistently poor practice standards (PJ, 2000;264:p32).

The facts of the case were presented to the committee by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors). Mr Sohawon attended the hearing and was represented by David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors).

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that a disturbing feature of the complaint against Mr Sohawon three years earlier had been the length of time over which there had been concern about the way he ran his pharmacy and also, when caught out, his misrepresentation to an inspector of the Society. The committee had now to determine whether he should be allowed to resume practice as a pharmacist, probably in the first instance as a locum or manager but in the longer term to run his own community pharmacy.

Mr Sohawon had good references in his favour. Possibly more importantly, he had been commendably honest at the hearing in accepting that he had not run his pharmacy in the 1990s in accordance with the high standards of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. "He has assured us that he would make every endeavour to meet those high standards", said the chairman. "We are inclined to accept that he has learned his lesson".

Stating that the committee would allow Mr Sohawon's name to be restored to the register, the chairman added that if the Society had cause to be critical of the way Mr Sohawon ran his pharmacy to the point where the committee again ordered his name to be removed, there would be little prospect of his name being restored for a second time.

Back to Top

Name restored to register after overcoming alcohol problem

At its meeting on 14 October 2002, the Statutory Committee approved the restoration to the register of a former pharmacist who had been struck off because of an alcohol problem.

The application for restoration was made by Alistair Bell, of 54 Barbeth Way, Cumbernauld, who was present at the hearing. The facts of the case were presented to the committee by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors).

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Bell's name had been removed from the register, following a direction by the committee, on 15 June 2001. When he had come before the committee previously (PJ 2001;267:276), Mr Bell had a history of alcohol abuse. He appeared now to be much improved. He had come to the present hearing without legal representation but had discharged himself with skill and aplomb.

To restore someone's name after only some 18 months was on the short side. The committee had indicated previously that in ordinary circumstances two years or more was the appropriate interval. However, they had been impressed with what Mr Bell had told them, the way he had worked to understand the depth of his previous problems and the efforts he had made to improve his general health. They were particularly impressed that the national co-ordinator of the Pharmacists' Health Support Scheme should have given him such a warm endorsement.

Lord Fraser said that he hoped Mr Bell had understood how his alcoholic problems had been brought about. The committee hoped they could be confident that he would never relapse into alcohol abuse again; but if he should for any reason come before the committee again it would be difficult to see how he would be able to continue to practise as a pharmacist. "We are", said the chairman "making something of a judgement on his ability to steer clear of alcohol from now on and wish him well in attaining that objective".

The committee directed that Mr Bell's name should be restored to the register.

Back to Top

Reprimand for pharmacist guilty of alcohol-related misconduct

A pharmacist who had been guilty of drink-driving charges and professional misconduct, but who had successfully fought alcohol problems, has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee

At its meetings on 9 October 2001 and 15 October 2002 the committee inquired into the case of James W. Fitzwilliams, of 15 Mansfield Road, Lodge Moor Estate, Gunness, Scunthorpe, South Humberside.

Information had been received that on 12 March 2000 at North Lincolnshire magistrates' court, Mr Fitzwilliams had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of driving when his breathalyser reading,129mcg of alcohol per 100ml, exceeded the prescribed limit. He was disqualified from driving for two years, and received a probation order for 12 months with a condition that he attended a programme for alcohol impaired drivers for 20 hours. He was also ordered to pay costs of £55.

In addition, a complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Fitzwilliams had been on duty as a pharmacist while incapable of discharging his professional duties. That might indicate he had been guilty of misconduct that could render him liable to be removed from the register.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) attended both meetings to present the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Fitzwilliams was present on both dates; he was represented by Sara Morgan, of Brooke North (solicitors).

Not fit to work

At the hearing on 9 October 2001, the committee heard that on 1 November 2000, a police officer paid a routine visit to the pharmacy at 247a Freeman Street, Grimsby, where Mr Fitzwilliams was working as pharmacist in charge. He observed that Mr Fitzwilliams's appearance was scruffy and unkempt, he looked unwell, his arms appeared to be shaking and he smelt of alcohol. On 6 November 2000 the police officer returned to the pharmacy accompanied by one of the Society's inspectors. Mr Fitzwilliams, when interviewed at the pharmacy, admitted that he had a drink problem. He agreed he was not fit to work, and went home.

Two members of the pharmacy's staff, interviewed on the same day, informed the inspector that Mr Fitzwilliams smelt of drink on most days and had sometimes appeared drunk. One of the staff said she had in the past corrected dispensing errors he had made and that he had been surly with customers.

The chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the conviction had been proved and the misconduct established. It had been revealed that Mr Fizwilliams had a serious problem of alcoholism. If that conduct had persisted, the committee would have removed his name from the register.

However, following the inspector's visit Mr Fitzwilliams had gone for treatment to Birdsgrove House for five weeks. Since then, there had been a transformation in his behaviour. The staff had noted a positive improvement. On subsequent unannounced visits by the inspector there had been no criticism of Mr Fitzwilliams's conduct. He had been abstinent for six months.

Ordinarily, said the chairman, that would not be regarded as a sufficient period to allow the committee to be confident there would be no further lapses. One concern was that his partner's ill health might be a cause of stress for Mr Fitzwilliams. They felt a greater period should elapse before coming to a decision.

The case would be adjourned for 12 months. When the hearing was resumed, reports would be required on Mr Fitzwilliams's conduct from appropriate counsellors. In the interim, it was suggested that Mr Fitzwilliams should have greater contact than in the past with his superintendent pharmacist, so that he could play a more supportive role.

Giving the committee's decision at the resumed hearing on 15 October 2002, the chairman said that there had been no adverse reports since the previous hearing. Reports from the Society's inspector, the director of Birdsgrove House and Mr Fitzwilliams's superintendent pharmacist had all been satisfactory. None had expressed concerns about his fitness to practice.

Nevertheless, the concerns of the committee had not been entirely allayed. In the past year, Mr Fitzwilliams had been battling alone against alcoholism. While that had its admirable side, there was some disappointment that he had not seemed to wish to avail himself of the wide range of support available to him. It was recommended that he should keep in touch with those sources.

Mr Fitzwilliams was then reprimanded.

Back to Top