Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7434 p49
13 January 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 90K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

• Pharmacy practice
• Health economics
• Dispensing errors
• Controlled drugs
• Ethics
• Adverse events
• Regulation
• Fitness to practise
• The Society (2)
• Retention fees (5)
• Pharmacy politicians
• The Journal (2)


Letters to the Editor

Fitness to practise

Was the pharmacist a scapegoat?

From Mr A. R. Prajapati, MRPharmS

I would like to add my voice to that of Paul Murphy (PJ, 23/30 December 2006, p768) about the Lloyds pharmacist being sued by an American lawyer.

I can see no sensible reason why the high court judge put such blame on the pharmacist. I believe that most of us would have just done the same as what the Lloyds pharmacist did on that day. He was unlucky. It could have happened to any of us.

Lots of questions arise from the ruling. Do US doctors write prescription from pharmacy labels? If so, then it is a fault of the US prescribing system or of the US prescriber. Why and how did the UK doctor prescribe the wrong dose? Did the UK doctor know what he or she was prescribing for? An important question is whether the patient informed the prescriber what dose she was taking and what for. Now that the UK prescribing doctor and the patient have settled out of court, is the judge right to put such blame on the pharmacist? Is the patient free from responsibility?

Did the judge understand the community pharmacy system in UK? I doubt it, from what he said in the court, namely that “the pharmacist should have checked with the prescriber”. What for? It is within the normal dosage range. And the judge did accept that much of the harm was done after the US doctor wrote the prescription as per the pharmacy label. In my opinion the pharmacist was just a scapegoat to calm the situation.

If the court expects such high standards then the same court should recognise that the current community pharmacy and prescribing system is not fit for purpose. Pharmaceutical and clinical assessment of a prescription needs redefining if we are to believe the ruling was right.

Asta Prajapati
Basildon, Essex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Regulation)
Next Topic (The Society)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal