| · Oxygen supplies (5)
· Community pharmacy
· Vitamin D
· Care homes
· Boots/UniChem merger
· Locum pharmacy
· Assisted dying
· Methadone
· Statins
· CPD
· Criminal convictions
· Overseas pharmacists
· National boards
Letters to the Editor
|
Criminal convictions
Pharmacists should not be struck-off for matters unrelated to pharmacy
From Mr A. Matalia, MRPharmS
I am surprised to read again and again how the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Statutory Committee strikes off pharmacists for incidents
not related to their ability to do their job.
I fail to see why a criminal conviction should bar a pharmacist from
working unless it is related to his pharmaceutical knowledge. I know
of no legislation that states a pharmacist with a criminal conviction
should be struck-off.
To work as a pharmacist one has to pay a high fee to the Society. In
fact, the fee should only be related to maintaining the Register, and
other costs should be collected by optional subscriptions.
A pharmacist’s registration should be bound by matters relating
to his pharmaceutical ability and nothing else. So what if a pharmacist
is convicted of speeding, drink driving, theft, violence or any other
matter? A plumber, electrician or gas fitter is not barred from working
in his field for such offences. Many of these people earn as much as
pharmacists, if not more. Gas fitters have to be Corgi-registered to
work, just as pharmacists have to be registered. Remember, a pharmacist
is not a law enforcer.
What is so special about pharmacy? By and large the public and press
consider it a white collar role and not a “professional” occupation.
It is time the Society got off its high horse and realised that pharmacy
is not something special. Pharmacists lag far behind in status to doctors,
dentists, opticians and even nurses, and continue to fall further. They
are more on par with physiotherapists.
Surely, it is time for someone to challenge the Statutory Committee in
the High Court or European Courts, perhaps, under the Human Rights Act
in relation to its right to prevent a qualified person from working as
a pharmacist, as a result of a matter not related to his clinical knowledge.
Amit Matalia
Coventry, West Midlands
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal