The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7356 p18
2 July 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 76K, Acrobat Reader

· Annual General Meeting
· Registration
· Pharmacology
· Controlled drugs
· Technicians
· Birdsgrove House
· Registration examination
· Revalidation
· Supermarket pharmacy
· Dispensing
· New pharmacy contract
· PCTs
· The Society

Letters to the Editor

Registration examination

Double standards

From Ms F. Zaidi, MRPharmS

I read the article regarding the registration examination (PJ, 18 June, p774) with interest. The Society is still insisting that the purpose of the examination is to safeguard the well-being of the public. The “three strikes and you are out” rule means that those candidates unable to pass the exam within three attempts are never allowed to become pharmacists. They are considered incompetent due to not passing an exam, which is outdated and irrelevant.

Why then are those pharmacists who have been removed from the register for being a danger to the public, due to drug or alcohol addiction or repeated dispensing errors, allowed to be restored to the register? Surely if these pharmacists, who are proven to be a danger to the public (unlike those condemned trainees) are allowed to practise again then those “failed” candidates should be given another chance? The situation smacks of double standards.

Farah Zaidi
Bolton, Lancashire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Birdsgrove House)

Next Topic (Revalidation)