Pharmacy legislation: public protector or professional hindrance?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors.

LanguageEnglish
Article numberfwt037
Pages87-108
Number of pages22
JournalMedical Law Review
Volume22
Issue number1
Early online date9 Dec 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Pharmacy Legislation
Pharmacists
legislation
pharmacist
supply
medication
profession
offense
Stifle
prosecution
pharmaceutical
Malpractice
act
medicine
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Medicine
homicide
appeal
regulation
responsibility

Bibliographical note

This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Medical law review following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Langley, C. A. (2014). Pharmacy legislation: public protector or professional hindrance. Medical law review, 22(1), 87-108 is available online at: http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/87

Keywords

  • dispensing errors
  • medication supply
  • Medicines Act 1968
  • pharmacy
  • professional regulation
  • section 64

Cite this

@article{1ecca1a88d274bb4a1a1da4719323123,
title = "Pharmacy legislation: public protector or professional hindrance?",
abstract = "Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors.",
keywords = "dispensing errors, medication supply, Medicines Act 1968, pharmacy, professional regulation, section 64",
author = "Langley, {Christopher A.}",
note = "This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Medical law review following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Langley, C. A. (2014). Pharmacy legislation: public protector or professional hindrance. Medical law review, 22(1), 87-108 is available online at: http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/87",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1093/medlaw/fwt037",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "87--108",
journal = "Medical Law Review",
issn = "0967-0742",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

Pharmacy legislation : public protector or professional hindrance? / Langley, Christopher A.

In: Medical Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, fwt037, 2014, p. 87-108.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pharmacy legislation

T2 - Medical Law Review

AU - Langley, Christopher A.

N1 - This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Medical law review following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Langley, C. A. (2014). Pharmacy legislation: public protector or professional hindrance. Medical law review, 22(1), 87-108 is available online at: http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/87

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors.

AB - Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors.

KW - dispensing errors

KW - medication supply

KW - Medicines Act 1968

KW - pharmacy

KW - professional regulation

KW - section 64

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894300395&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/medlaw/fwt037

DO - 10.1093/medlaw/fwt037

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 87

EP - 108

JO - Medical Law Review

JF - Medical Law Review

SN - 0967-0742

IS - 1

M1 - fwt037

ER -