Plagiarism and Dishonesty in Postgraduate Studies: GPhC Sanctions Two Pharmacists

Date of Decision: June 14, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

One registrant plagiarised coursework from another pharmacist during a Postgraduate Diploma course.
The second registrant provided his coursework, knowing there was a risk it would be misused.
Both pharmacists gave dishonest accounts to the university during its academic misconduct investigation.

Outcome: The pharmacist who committed plagiarism received a formal warning. The pharmacist who provided the plagiarised material faced no further action.

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6.1 – Act with honesty and integrity to maintain public trust and confidence in your profession
Standard 6.5 – Meet accepted standards of personal and professional behaviour
Standard 6.8 – Respond honestly, openly and politely to complaints and criticism

Case Summary

Allegations

This case involved two pharmacists who were enrolled in a postgraduate distance-learning Clinical Pharmacy course. One registrant submitted a Cardiovascular Disease 2 paper that closely resembled a paper previously submitted by her colleague and friend. Turnitin software flagged significant similarity, and the university’s Programme Manager identified that even outdated references had been duplicated—strong evidence of direct copying.

Further investigation revealed that the paper had been shared voluntarily by the second pharmacist, who had submitted it a year earlier. The registrant who plagiarised the work claimed that she had not seen the colleague’s paper until it was sent to her by the university’s academic misconduct team. However, both registrants’ statements during the initial university investigation were later found to be dishonest.

Findings

The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee found that both registrants admitted all allegations. The female pharmacist admitted submitting a plagiarised paper and providing false statements to the university. The male pharmacist admitted supplying his original paper to her and later lying about it during the university’s initial inquiry.

The Committee identified several aggravating factors. For the registrant who plagiarised, these included:

The potential risk to patients if she were to gain a qualification without adequate understanding.
Multiple, distinct acts of dishonesty.
A well-prepared and sophisticated cover-up strategy.

For the registrant who shared the paper:

The continuation of dishonesty through a false written statement.
The impact of his actions on increasing the severity of the co-registrant’s situation.

Despite these issues, both individuals provided strong evidence of personal reflection, remediation, and continued professional competence.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee determined that the actions of both pharmacists amounted to misconduct. Though no clinical failings were identified, their integrity and candour had been compromised—critical traits in the pharmacy profession. For both, it was concluded that their actions brought the profession into disrepute and undermined public confidence.

However, the risk to patients was deemed remote. The Committee found that both had taken serious and meaningful steps toward remediation. The registrant who plagiarised had since passed the contested module and demonstrated improved ability to manage personal difficulties. The registrant who supplied the plagiarised work had been promoted and was in a position of considerable responsibility.

Nonetheless, the Committee found that both registrants’ fitness to practise was currently impaired due to the serious nature of the dishonesty and the importance of maintaining public trust.

Sanction

For the female registrant who plagiarised, the Committee decided to issue a formal warning, citing that a warning would sufficiently address public interest concerns without unduly punishing her. The warning emphasized the importance of maintaining honesty and acting on personal limitations before compromising professional standards.

“The Committee hereby issues a formal warning… that she should ensure that she consistently complies with the requirement to act with honesty and candour.”

For the male registrant, the Committee concluded that no further action was necessary. His confession, remorse, and professional development since the incident indicated that he had already faced sufficient consequences. His decision to confess to the university—despite knowing it could bring disciplinary repercussions—was viewed as a significant mitigating factor.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Dishonesty, even outside clinical settings, can severely damage public trust. Pharmacy professionals are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards, not only in practice but also in academic and administrative settings.
Professional obligations extend to academic integrity. Sharing assessments or misrepresenting work in educational settings breaches university and GPhC standards alike.
Transparency during investigations is crucial. Attempting to conceal misconduct only compounds the problem. Candour and honesty during disciplinary processes can mitigate outcomes.
Personal challenges do not excuse professional misconduct. While the Committee took personal circumstances into account, it made clear that professionals must act appropriately even under stress.
Employers’ support and professional growth post-incident are important but not sufficient alone. Insight, reflection, and genuine remediation are key to restoring trust.

This case serves as a reminder that integrity in every sphere—clinical, academic, and personal—is vital for pharmacy professionals. The GPhC’s decision reinforces the principle that dishonesty is taken seriously, but that proper remediation can lead to rehabilitation and the opportunity to continue contributing to the profession.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.