[ad_1]
A pharmaceutical superintendent has been suspended from practice by the Superior Court.
The suspension is applied, pending disciplinary proceedings, in connection with a complaint alleging that the pharmacist had dispensed the wrong product, left methadone for patients in an alley or in a gambling shop, attended the pharmacy while he was drunk and tried to hide taking medicine by asking the staff to leave the pharmacy.
The pharmacist, who cannot be identified by court order, had accepted that he should not practice as a pharmacist for the time being and said that he had “developed significant mental health problems and, as a consequence, has now developed an addiction to alcohol. and medication ”.
Although he offered a pledge not to practice, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland decided to seek a suspension order from the court for reasons that included the general gravity of the allegations.
The suspension order was granted by Judge Richard Humphreys last week and his written judgment on the matter was published on Wednesday.
The judge determined that there is a risk, as specified in section 45 of the Pharmacy Act of 2007, to the health and safety of the public of such magnitude that it justifies suspension.
In material respects, a compromise is less effective in addressing risk than a stay order, he ruled.
It also issued orders allowing the society to modify the online “public-facing” pharmacist registry – essentially a summary of the official registry – to allow the Society to indicate that the pharmacist is suspended and to notify interested parties.
The judge said his sentence appeared to be the first written sentence on the suspension of pharmacists under section 45, although the principles regarding the suspension of other professionals are closely related.
He pointed out that the defendant has voluntarily ceased to be the pharmaceutical superintendent of the pharmacy in question, had not worked there since the day after the complaint, no longer has codes or passwords and has resigned as director of the company that operates the pharmacy.
In his view, he said that “risk” means the risk independent of the application of the regulatory regime against the professional.
He disagreed with Simon Mills SC, for the pharmacist, that the suspension was “draconian” when a compromise had been offered, saying that the practitioner will not practice anyway.
He rejected arguments about the impact on the good name and reputation of the pharmacist, saying “that is affected in any way.”
On the arguments that, because the case related to a health problem, it was preferable to respond to the pharmacist’s commitment, he said that it is more likely that it is in the long-term interest of the respondent “to have to face the consequences “.
She agreed with Society Attorney Zoe Richardson that where there are addiction problems, it could dilute the meaning and effectiveness of a business.
Ms. Richardson had said that certain features of the evidence and the allegations against the defendant suggested “a certain degree of unreliability in relation to the guarantees offered by him prior to this point,” she noted.
The existence of a specific legal crime of practicing without having a valid registration does not apply if one simply gives a commitment and that dilutes the effectiveness of a commitment, he also maintained.
The terms of the society’s public record and the information available to third parties should reflect the defendant’s non-practitioner status and that was more appropriately achieved through a suspension order, he said.
In the concluding observations, he noted that in the case “possible inflexibilities in the legislation” were highlighted and the Oireachtas is considering this area through the Regulated Professions (Health and Social Assistance) (Amendment) Bill of 2019.
While any decision is entirely a matter for the Oireachtas, the legislative scheme could be improved, even having a statutory basis for voluntary administrative suspension as an alternative to mandatory judicial suspension, he said.
[ad_2]