Disciplinary Committee

Reprimand for misconduct in the supply of cyclizine

A Gloucestershire pharmacist who infringed the Code of Ethics and Standards by regularly supplying the same customer with Valoid (cyclizine), a product liable to abuse, has been reprimanded by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Disciplinary Committee.

At a hearing on 21 January, the committee inquired into a complaint by the Society’s Council against Matthew Duncan Mollen (registration number 1071281), of Stroud. The Council alleged that Mr Mollen’s activities may have constituted misconduct such as to render him unfit to have his name on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists in that his conduct breached code of ethics requirements that pharmacists should at all times act in the interest of patients and the public, should keep their skills, knowledge and performance up to date, and should be aware of the abuse potential of certain non-prescription products and not supply them when there were reasonable grounds for suspecting misuse.

The committee heard that at the time of the alleged misconduct Mr Mollen was employed as a pharmacy manager in Stroud. Between December 2004 and April 2005 he ordered a total of 72 containers of 100 tablets at the request of the same customer, who claimed to represent an oil rig company. All the tablets were supplied to the customer, either by Mr Mollen (on five occasions) or by locum pharmacists on his instruction (on two occasions).

The committee was told that Mr Mollen had become suspicious of a letter of authority supplied by the customer and at about the time of the fifth supply had contacted the local police, who referred the matter to the Society inspector for the area. When interviewed by the inspector, Mr Mollen said that he had never previously sold cyclizine and that it was not a product of abuse in Australia, where he had practised before 2002.

Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, John Burrow, said that the Society’s case was that Mr Mollen should have known of Valoid’s abuse potential from the outset.

Mr Mollen’s case was that he was not aware initially of the abuse potential of Valoid, although he accepted that he should have been aware and apologised for not updating his knowledge adequately. He also accepted that, with hindsight, he should have acted more quickly and firmly.

The committee found the facts proved on the basis that Mr Mollen should have known that he was supplying a drug liable to abuse. Allowing a large amount to be purchased was serious misconduct. The committee accepted that the misconduct was such as to render Mr Mollen unfit to be on the Register.

When considering sanction, the committee bore in mind that the purpose was not to punish the respondent but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of behaviour.

The committee found that the case had a number of mitigating features. Mr Mollen had shown full insight into what he had done. Although he had shown a lack of knowledge in the area concerned, character references suggested that generally he was a skilled, knowledgeable and professional pharmacist. In the light of the remedial steps he had taken, there was no continuing risk to the public or patients. For these reasons, the committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.