Jeff
I am not just covering my arse. Ok the pharmacist didn't get anything, but he will have had this hanging over his head for over a year!
Quote:
|
He added: “Mr Bhaiji is fortunate that the law has moved in the direction in which he sensibly acted; it was, however, a brave decision. He might have been wrong and he could have suffered grave consequences. Pharmacists would be far better advised to communicate to the Society their concerns and invite the Society to advance their concerns. I can only say that that would appear to us to be the correct way forward.
|
I have phoned the society on this, and have been told by the ethics/law or whatever it department that I should not dispense it, unless it says I can do so on the script.
I also phoned my friend tonight who runs the 150+ methadone/needle ex shop and he agrees with me.
Sorry mate, but I have to protect this patient first. I can't help anyone if I'm struck off.
I find the "start looking after patients" a bit insulting Jeff. You know, as I have previously written about, I started up and ran a needle exchange scheme in a very dodgy part of town. I ran a first class service to those people, and had over 600 clients within six months. I even managed to keep the other (previously very worried) store holders happy.
I also kept the company happy, as they had their £10,000 back after only ten months, when they had expected a return after around three years. I used to have drug workers in there helping clients, family planning people, you name it. They were in my store giving advice directly to the people who wanted it and needed it most, in a private room at the back of the store. Crime in the area even went down and I was on local TV.
NONE of these things, or past history, or any good/great deeds you have previously done, will count for squat if they want to make an example of you. I know a lawyer (pharmacist too) who told me that over the years they had tried to analyse the verdicts the statt comm give out. He said there was no correlation to be found, and called it a roll of the dice. He said he honestly believed it could be done on the grounds of how they got out of bed that day.
Until dispensing methadone in this way is confirmed 100% by the society, then my advice is don't do it. My friend with all the addicts agrees with me that it is a sad state of affairs, especially when you know the person is really trying to get off drugs. He said he's even considered saying they had run out of methadone the previous day, make a CD entry stating they came to the store but no methadone was there, and then entering the rest of the weeks worth. He's decided against it, for obvious reasons.
He also told me about two local GP's who completely refuse to add to the script that the person can take the rest away. He says if you ring them because a client is trying to collect the rest of his prescription the next day, they tell you to tell the patient to come back next week. He's told me he has pointed out to these GP's that these people cannot last a week without methadone, and will almost certainly start robbing etc. This would probably end up with people being hurt (physically or emotionally) and the patient losing their job. They still refuse to give permission for the rest to be dispensed. So do you then go against the prescribers wishes? Where is their duty of care in an example like this? Why are some Dr's getting stamps/writing on scripts that the balance can be given if it's not picked up on the first dispensing day if it doesn't matter?
Sorry, but it's sailing too close to the wind for me.