Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

My fitness-to-practise treatment was nerve-wracking but fair

In her blog, ‘My horrific encounter with ‘fitness to practise’’, pharmacist Sarah Seddon shares the harrowing experience she had with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and she was only a witness in the case.

Without wanting to detract in any way from Seddon’s ordeal, I would like to say that when the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) handled my fitness-to-practise hearing, it was altogether different. I was subject to these proceedings for a health issue: the culmination of a long period of alcohol use disorder.

Fitness-to-practise proceedings are nerve-wracking; there is no getting away from that fact. They are usually protracted affairs — it was four years from the first serving of papers on me to the final hearing. The outcome is always in doubt and, until your case is disposed of, your life is on hold. Each day becomes a trial.

I had dealings with several members of GPhC staff and I found them sympathetic to me, without detracting from the fact that I had a case to answer. During the process, there are conditions imposed that can seem daunting — just who do you get to supervise your practice? Who can you ask to write a quarterly report? The GPhC helped me with getting it all together.

At the final hearing, I defended myself, and the solicitor for the GPhC was helpful to me in that he advised which areas he would cover when questioning me. The chair of the panel was also helpful to me as I was on my own. The result was that my fitness to practise was considered no longer impaired and I could practise without restrictions.

Before anyone runs away with the idea that the GPhC is soft, I would like to remind people that it is not a welfare service. The regulator exists to protect the public and to uphold the good name of pharmacy and, should I have had any other issue, I would have been treated accordingly. However, from my experience, I think I would have been treated humanely — a precious thing when one is in the pits of despair.

 

Bob Dunkley, retired pharmacist

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2020.20207529

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.