Pharmacist Suspended for One Month After Selling Pharmacy Medicines Online While Suspended from Practice

Between 2013 and 2014, while subject to a GPhC interim suspension order, the registrant:

• Sold P medicines online via platforms like eBay and eBid, including items such as codeine linctus, Senokot, and Optrex Infected Eye Drops.
• Used the online name “XXXX Pharmacy” (redacted), giving the misleading impression that the sales were being made by a registered pharmacy.
• Did so without any facility for pharmacist oversight, and failed to check the suitability of the medicines for customers.
• Caused harm to patients addicted to codeine, who purchased excessive quantities without proper supervision.

The GPhC found that this occurred during a time when he was prohibited from practising as a pharmacist, violating the interim order.

Findings

The Committee concluded that:

• The registrant’s actions involved deliberate dishonesty, lack of integrity, and flouting of legal and regulatory frameworks.
• He intentionally gave the impression he was selling from a pharmacy, knowing that this was misleading.
• The use of codeine linctus online, without any patient checks, posed serious risks of harm, especially given the medicine’s addictive potential.
• The misconduct caused actual harm to individuals with codeine dependence.

The panel summarised its view:

“Dishonesty coupled with the deliberate flouting of an Interim Order are matters that bear on the fundamental principles of the profession.”

The panel also noted aggravating factors:

• Risk and actual harm to patients
• Misuse of the “pharmacy” title
• Repeated transactions for financial gain
• Premeditation and deception

However, it acknowledged that:

• The registrant had shown genuine remorse, insight, and sustained remediation
• He had since returned to practice with no further concerns
• He had undertaken CPD, ethics training, and worked constructively in a community pharmacy
• He had no intent to return to internet pharmacy and had ceased all involvement in online sales

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel found that:

• The registrant’s actions amounted to serious misconduct
• His fitness to practise was currently impaired, not just because of patient risk, but also to uphold public confidence and standards
• The misconduct breached multiple fundamental principles of pharmacy, including honesty, safeguarding, and regulatory compliance

Sanction

The Committee imposed a one-month suspension, stating that:

• A warning or conditions would be insufficient to reflect the gravity of the misconduct
• Removal from the register was not necessary, given the passage of time, the registrant’s insight, and his successful return to practice
• The short suspension would send a declaratory message to the profession and the public

Importantly, the panel said:

“The fact of suspension is important, not the duration. A longer period might damage his remediation by straining his employer relationship.”

The suspension took effect 28 days after notification, with no review hearing required.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Selling pharmacy-only medicines requires proper checks – All P medicines must be sold under pharmacist supervision, even online.
2. Suspended pharmacists must not engage in any professional activity – Practising while suspended breaches fitness to practise.
3. Misleading the public about pharmacy status is a serious offence – Use of protected titles like “pharmacy” is strictly regulated.
4. Insight and remediation can reduce sanctions—but don’t erase misconduct – Remorse is important, but sanctions are still necessary for serious dishonesty.
5. The public interest can outweigh individual reform – Sanctions serve to uphold professional standards and maintain trust in regulation.

Conclusion

This case is a clear warning that dishonesty, unauthorised sale of P medicines, and breaching suspension orders are serious matters with real regulatory consequences. Despite significant remediation and positive testimonials, the registrant’s past conduct warranted a one-month suspension to uphold public confidence in the profession and its regulation.