Letter From Pharmaceutical Journal

Hi Future Pharmacists :smile:

This letter was in the PJ last week. How do you all feel about any criminal convictions leading to you being struck off? This is a letter from the PJ. I'd like to know your thoughts on this?

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

Reply 1

Jimmocrates

On the one hand, when you agree to become a pharmacist you agree to abide by the Service Spec of the Medicines, Ethics and Practice guide, so you could argue that the pharmacist knows exectly what they're getting themselves in for and shouldn't complain...

... on the other hand i do tend to agree that matters unrelated to pharmacy can affect your licence/registration. The Society wouldn't look to kindly on you treating a patient with disdain and isrespect because you disagreed with a part of their private life, and similarly i think this attitude should be taken towards pharmacists.

On the public perception of pharmacists... i think people who know what pharmacists do and have been to them before for advice respect that they are very knowledgable people and can help in a range of health issues, but the majority still see us as no more qualified than the people at argos who get your orders out of the stock room, i put this mainly down to the way pharmacists are reported (or not reported as the case may be) in the media)

Reply 2

cherrypicker999

Well, would you then argue that if a shopping area was controlled by the mafia and you wanted to open a business there, you should not complain as you know it is operated by the mafia?

The RPSGB is like the mafia. It extorts money from pharmacists. If they do not pay this protection money (fees) they are stopped from working.

What ever happened to law?

Remember, a pharmacists has not the option not to join the RPSGB if he wants to work as a pharmacist. This is wrong.
Registration should be under the control of the government and it should be optional to join the RPSGB and agree with their pathetic rules.