Pharmacist Removed from Register for Supplying Controlled Drugs Illegally

In a recent determination by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), a pharmacist was removed from the register following a conviction for supplying controlled drugs illegally. The pharmacist was found guilty of supplying Class C drugs, including Diazepam, Nitrazepam, Tramadol, Zolpidem, and Zopiclone, over an 18-month period. The case was heard remotely on October 13, 2021, and the pharmacist was not present or represented.

Allegations:
The pharmacist was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court on February 9, 2021, for supplying controlled drugs illegally. The conviction was based on the pharmacist’s own confession, and he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.

Findings:
The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s actions constituted a significant breach of trust. The pharmacist diverted over 29,000 packets of controlled drugs from the legal supply chain, posing a significant risk to public safety. The committee noted that there was no evidence of actual harm, but the potential risk was high.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:
The committee determined that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired due to the conviction. The pharmacist’s actions were found to have brought the profession into disrepute, breached fundamental principles of the profession, and demonstrated a lack of integrity. The pharmacist did not provide any evidence of remediation or insight into his actions.

Sanction:
Given the seriousness of the offences, the committee concluded that removal from the register was the only appropriate sanction. The pharmacist’s illegal conduct over an extended period and the lack of engagement with the proceedings were significant factors in the decision.

Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:
This case highlights the importance of maintaining professional integrity and the severe consequences of breaching legal and ethical standards. Pharmacy professionals must adhere to the GPhC’s standards, report any concerns, and avoid actions that could harm public trust in the profession. The case serves as a reminder of the critical role pharmacists play in safeguarding public health and the legal obligations they must uphold.