Pharmacist Removed from Register for Unlawful Supply of Controlled Drugs Leading to Patient’s Death

Date of Decision: January 17, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Outcome: Removal from the GPhC register

GPhC Standards Breached: Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care Standard 2 – Work in partnership with others Standard 3 – Communicate effectively Standard 5 – Use professional judgment Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner Standard 8 – Speak up when things go wrong Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) investigated the registrant following their conviction for the unlawful supply of controlled drugs. The case stemmed from an investigation initiated after the sudden death of a patient, Person A, in August 2020.

The police examined Person A’s phone and found extensive WhatsApp conversations between her and the registrant, indicating that she had been obtaining Zopiclone and Zolpidem from the registrant without a valid prescription. Her husband, Person B, later approached the registrant under the pretext of purchasing medication and confirmed that he was able to buy controlled drugs for cash, without any prescription.

The registrant was subsequently arrested and charged with:

  • Being concerned in the supply of Class C controlled drugs without a prescription
  • Failure to maintain accurate records of drug supply

In August 2022, the registrant was convicted at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for these offences.

Findings

The GPhC panel determined that the registrant’s conduct demonstrated:

  • A serious breach of trust by unlawfully supplying prescription medication.
  • A lack of accountability, as the registrant denied wrongdoing even after conviction.
  • Disregard for patient safety, particularly given the risks associated with controlled drugs.

Despite Person A’s known history of drug misuse, the registrant continued to supply her with addictive medication. The panel also noted that the registrant failed to show insight or remorse and instead blamed others for their conviction.

A direct quote from the sentencing judge highlighted this lack of responsibility:

“There is not a shred of recognition by you of the risks posed to vulnerable persons by the sale of under-the-counter prescription drugs.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel ruled that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

  • Public protection concerns due to the registrant’s unlawful conduct.
  • A fundamental breach of professional standards, making continued registration untenable.
  • A lack of insight, increasing the risk of future misconduct.

Given the seriousness of the offences, the panel concluded that the registrant’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a pharmacist.

Sanction

The only proportionate sanction was removal from the GPhC register. The panel considered lesser sanctions, such as suspension or conditions, but determined they would be inadequate due to:

  • The premeditated and sustained nature of the misconduct.
  • The financial gain derived from unlawful drug supply.
  • The registrant’s refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing or demonstrate insight.

Additionally, an interim suspension order was imposed immediately, preventing the registrant from practising while awaiting formal removal from the register.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

  1. Controlled drug regulations must be strictly followed – Any deviation, particularly involving unlicensed supply, can have severe legal and professional consequences.
  2. Patient safety is paramount – Supplying drugs outside of prescription protocols exposes patients to significant harm.
  3. Denial and lack of insight worsen the outcome – Acknowledging mistakes and demonstrating remediation are crucial in fitness to practise cases.
  4. The GPhC has zero tolerance for unlawful conduct – Engaging in illegal activity, especially drug-related offences, will almost always lead to removal.
  5. Public confidence in the profession must be upheld – The registrant’s actions damaged trust in pharmacy, necessitating strong regulatory action.

Conclusion

The removal of the registrant from the GPhC register serves as a clear warning that pharmacists who engage in criminal activity, particularly involving controlled drugs, will face the most severe sanctions. This case highlights the importance of ethical practice and adherence to professional standards in protecting patients and maintaining public confidence in pharmacy.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or register for free to access.

Leave a Reply