Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So not all pharmacists are responsible people of good character...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So not all pharmacists are responsible people of good character...

    So pharmacists are classed as responsible people of good character and you have to be, to join the authoritative pharmacy body.

    But we see quite a few of pharmacists getting struck off or suspended.

    So the conclusion is:
    Not all pharmacists are responsible people of good character. Then you have to accept that these are just the ones that have been caught, the best dodgy pharmacists will be smarter. So if not all pharmacists are not responsible people of good character its wrong to respect or trust someone just because they are pharmacists..

    But who trained these pharmacists? who let them qualify? who let them be responsible for peoples lives/health?

    Does it matter where they did their pre-reg? Does it matter who signed them off? None of these websites mentions this or asks these questions...

    Conclusion is:
    It doesnt really matter which tutor signed them off, or where they did their pre-reg, no one cares or bothers to ask, so it is relatively insignificant.

    It can be argued that they are just human, or that people change or that indeed they were actually good as pharmacists but the general public places high level of trust in pharmacists hence the need to be a "responsible person of good character." is very important.

    You cant really have training competencies to determine whether a trainee pharmacist is a potential murdered or rapist, or if they are really a good person. This is judged by the tutor who supervises the trainee then makes the final decision on whether they should qualify. That makes sense but then youd have to be a really good judge of character.

    But sometimes people get it wrong as shown in the links above. So what happens to the tutors who signed them off...nothing? Should they be investigated?

    For example I wasnt allowed to qualify because allegedly 'I cant communicate effectively in English' (so if you having trouble reading my post i apologise) but nothing was done about this, no one looked into and the decision was uncontested by anyone.

    Conclusion:
    Tutors get it wrong sometimes...the more responsible or authoritative people do nothing about it..too busy or nothing they can do about it.
    Last edited by rafhelp; 7th, March 2019, 07:48 PM.
    [URL="http://preregpharmacist.com"][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][SIZE="2"]Trainee Pharmacy Software[/SIZE][/COLOR][/URL] - The only desktop application specifically designed for pre-registration pharmacists!

  • #2
    Not sure what your point is here. Doctors are just people at the end of the day too and make mistakes or only look after themselves etc.

    Corruption in every industry no matter how ‘professional’ you deem them to be.

    Comment


    • #3
      MPs' expences.

      More than a couple of thousand years ago, Plato in the republic through the narrator Glaucon asked what moral behaviour was in relation to the Ring of Gyges which could make people invisible. How would people behave with such a power?

      MPs' expences, particularly ACA ones MPs voted to keep secret, so is a close approximation to the ring of gyges. Only they had the power to keep it secret and thought the stuff would never be found out! MPs' expences showed that 90% of MPs were bad and greedy people, claiming thousands often 20k extra in expences already on top of a large salary and various other expences. The scandal.also showed something like 10% to be completely immoral people.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't think that one can say that '90% of MPs were bad and greedy people'. Being an MP, especially for a constituency far from London is an expensive business. And some blame must be attached to the office that approved 'excessive' expenses.

        Comment


        • #5
          Many years ago, most reports of the Stat com concerned pharmacists taking advantage of young girl assistants. Very few employees now appear before the authorities. it is generally owners in trouble for claiming money they were not entitled to or others trying to lie their way out. The latter regarded as very serious.
          johnep

          Comment


          • #6
            One can read the reports off the GPhC "Fitness to Practice"..... which is what they call the procedure by which pharmacists are 'disciplined' .......Hearings by going to https://www.pharmacyregulation.org, then clicking on 'Raising Concerns', followed by 'Determination Search'. The last case reported would stir Johnep's memories as it concerned sales of Codeine Linctus. Unusual nowadays, but once upon a time quite common!

            When issues of a 'defendants' health are concerned the sitting is in private and all one can read is the decision. However, when there is a suggestion of misconduct, then it's public. Thus another recent case involved a mixture of health issues, which were not reported, and misuse of CD's, which were.

            Looking at the last few cases.... which may or may not be statistically significant, ............one was an owner .... the Codeine Linctus case...... another was a locum who forged a GP's signature, and another was a Boots manager who made a series of passes at one of his younger female staff.

            What is noticeable is that there is often a gap between the published date of the Hearing and the publication of a report, and also that many of the Hearings result in no report.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Merlyn View Post
              I don't think that one can say that '90% of MPs were bad and greedy people'. Being an MP, especially for a constituency far from London is an expensive business. And some blame must be attached to the office that approved 'excessive' expenses.
              You would say that, wouldn't you?

              I think I remember reading you were very close to an MP. Fair enough if it annoys you, but people should really declare an interest.

              Usually people say the reverse, that having an office far from london isn't an expensive business - unless you're a local MP and do it in your garage and go off to prison.

              You know perfectly well that the sort of ACA expenses I'm talking about in the past, are different to the office and transport expenses (which are both extremely lavish on top) which I already stated in my previous post.

              As for blame the office and rules. Who had ultimate control of the rules? The MPs. Of course they voted to keep it secret. That's what makes it so bad!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rafhelp View Post

                But sometimes people get it wrong as shown in the links above. So what happens to the tutors who signed them off...nothing? Should they be investigated?
                If you apply this idea more widely than professions it's interesting.

                There is an innate belief in modern management in the UK that they can 'sniff out' the 'talent' particularly in interviews. This patently absurd myth always has the 1 in 10, the 1 in 20, the 1 in 1000 who made it and went far. You never heard a manager saying god I am awful, I hired the most godawful person and they left, I hope no one else notices. It's all the positive stuff.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mcitr View Post

                  You would say that, wouldn't you?

                  I think I remember reading you were very close to an MP. Fair enough if it annoys you, but people should really declare an interest.

                  Usually people say the reverse, that having an office far from london isn't an expensive business - unless you're a local MP and do it in your garage and go off to prison.

                  You know perfectly well that the sort of ACA expenses I'm talking about in the past, are different to the office and transport expenses (which are both extremely lavish on top) which I already stated in my previous post.

                  As for blame the office and rules. Who had ultimate control of the rules? The MPs. Of course they voted to keep it secret. That's what makes it so bad!
                  Don't know where you got that from; I'm not, and never have been, 'close' to an MP. I once thought about trying to become one, and I've been an Election Agent, but that was long ago, back in the 70's........ strewth, 40 years ago, ........ but I never stood, and and neither of my candidates got elected.
                  I've met, and even been on occasion friendly with, a few, both those who were elected and those who didn't, over the course of my life; some I've formed a good impression, some I haven't. One or two I've realised afterwards I shouldn't have had such a good impression of, but there you go!

                  So, I've never been 'close'. And as to individual's characters, I can only speak as I find. And politics, as in my opinion being affected by their politics, doesn't come into it. If the job of an MP is done 'properly' it's neither easy, nor that well remunerated, especially if the MP is representing a constituency away from London. It doesn't, shouldn't, finish on Friday afternoon, either.

                  What I am sure about is that, you have to be a certain sort of person to go into politics, have to have a certain sort of mind-set. Public service. As to be fair, with being a pharmacist, teacher or whatever. And it isn't a matter of 'just' being in the House itself; there's committee work...... and one can't..... or shouldn't..... just walk into a committee, any committee and pick up the agenda and express an opinion. Then there's constituency work, supporting, advising constituents, whether or not, often they agree with you, or are likely to vote for you, however helpful you've been.

                  So I don't think MP's, on the whole, are 'bad', or are, by definition, bad people. Some, and of course you are right, have unquestionably been stupidly greedy, but we don't hear so much about the others. Such as the MP's who've said they were elected as Workers Representatives, took the salary they'd earned as whatever and gave the rest to charity. Or the Ministers whose homes are in the Greater London area who use public transport to get to work, rather than a Ministerial car..,.... although one of the advantages of using such a car is that reading can be done while someone else drives.

                  Where I would completly agree is that there should have been a lot more transparency about the rule-setting, but it's not all that long since only the wealthy could afford to be elected to parliament, since MP's were paid nothing.

                  And nothing of this should be read as party-political.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X