Dishonesty in Homeopathic Remedy Sales Leads to 12-Month Suspension for Pharmacist

Date of Decision: September 13, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

• Dishonestly sold and attempted to sell homeopathic remedies (Mandragora) with falsely claimed preparation methods.
• Misled a customer by stating remedies were machine-produced using a Korsakovian method when they were not.
• Sent a dishonest email attributing the false claims to a non-existent "trusted colleague."
• Attempted to cover up earlier dishonesty through additional falsehoods.

Outcome: 12-month suspension

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 1 – Make patients your first concern
• Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
• Standard 6 – Behave professionally
• Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

The case concerned a pharmacist who engaged in dishonest conduct over a sustained period involving the sale and attempted sale of homeopathic remedies, specifically Mandragora, with ultra-high potencies. The registrant falsely informed a customer that these remedies were produced using a machine-based Korsakovian method, a process that was never employed. The dishonesty was compounded when the registrant attempted to explain away the misinformation by attributing it to a fictitious “trusted colleague” in an email to the customer dated 14 April 2015.

Between April 2013 and April 2015, the pharmacist supplied and attempted to supply Mandragora potencies ranging from 400M to 100MM, with total invoice values reaching approximately £15,000. The registrant’s actions misled the customer both about the nature of the products and the integrity of the production process.

Findings

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the registrant’s actions constituted a pattern of sustained and deliberate dishonesty. They rejected the explanation that the email referencing the “trusted colleague” was sent inadvertently or that it was a mere “stream of consciousness.” Instead, they found it to be a calculated attempt to deflect responsibility. The panel commented:

“Whatever his motive for his initial dishonesty in his dealings with [the complainant], this email was an attempt to cover up that earlier dishonesty and the Committee considers it to be particularly reprehensible. It, together with the earlier dishonesty, demonstrates misconduct which is wholly incompatible with the profession.”

This conduct was deemed not only to violate the professional standards but also to bring the profession into disrepute and call into question the registrant’s integrity.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The committee determined that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired due to the serious nature of the misconduct and the lack of initial insight into the gravity of the dishonest behaviour. The registrant initially downplayed the issue as poor judgment influenced by personal stressors. However, the panel emphasized that dishonesty is an attitudinal matter, not one of simple misjudgment.

Despite acknowledging some insight, the committee was not convinced that the registrant had yet fully recognized the consequences of his misconduct. The delay in acknowledging responsibility and the continued insistence on implausible excuses undermined his credibility.

Sanction

After weighing both mitigating and aggravating factors, the panel imposed a 12-month suspension. Aggravating factors included the duration and deliberate nature of the dishonesty, financial gain, and the registrant’s attempts to conceal the truth even during the hearings. Mitigating factors included personal difficulties during the relevant period, repayment of monies to the customer, early admission of misconduct, and a sincere effort at continuing professional development (CPD).

The panel noted that removal from the register was a viable option but decided it would be disproportionate in this case, stating:

“The Committee considers that, when the Registrant reflects further on his misconduct, his behaviour in these proceedings and this Committee’s determination, he may be able to come to a position where he accepts that he has been dishonest… and will start to embark meaningfully on the path to genuine and full insight.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Honesty Is a Non-Negotiable Tenet: The case reaffirms that dishonesty, especially sustained and calculated, is incompatible with professional practice. Pharmacy professionals must always present truthful information, particularly regarding product formulation and safety.
2. Full Insight and Remediation Are Essential: The GPhC expects practitioners to exhibit complete and unambiguous insight into their misconduct. Denial, excuses, or partial admissions undermine trust and hinder remediation.
3. Transparent Communication Builds Trust: Misleading statements, especially those that are later proven false, severely damage the trust between a pharmacist and their clients and can jeopardize professional standing.
4. Professional Conduct Extends Beyond Clinical Practice: This case involved a non-clinical product (homeopathic remedies), yet the standards of honesty and integrity still applied. Pharmacists must uphold ethical standards in all business dealings.
5. Procedural Safeguards Can Mitigate Risk: The registrant later implemented checks such as requiring multiple staff approvals for unusual orders and revised SOPs. These are good practices that can prevent future lapses and support ethical decision-making.

This case serves as a critical reminder that pharmacy professionals must always uphold the highest standards of honesty, regardless of the setting or context of their practice.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.