Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20the judgement in Cheatle v GMC [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin) at paragraph 17). We referto our findings. We consider that Miss Vora has, by reason of her misconduct on 13 and14 July 2011, brought the pharmacy profession into disrepute. She also breachedfundamental tenets of the profession. Her patient was not her first concern. She withheldprescribed medication in order to force a customer to pay compensation, and was extremelyrude and abusive to a patient and another member of the public.We turn to consider the issue of insight. Miss Vora did accept that if she had withheldmedication it would be obvious that she had not taken care of her patient’s well-being. Sheacknowledged that it was very important that a patient is given all their medication. Thesepoints are so basic they could hardly be denied. Miss Vora's evidence was that she hadsimply not acted as alleged. Miss Vora was, of course, entitled to deny the allegationsvigorously and, by her counsel, to cross-examine the witnesses. We acknowledge thatacceptance of culpability is not a condition precedent of insight. Further, it is no part ofour function to punish Miss Vora because we have found that she did not tell us the truth.It is, however, our function to assess Miss Vora's fitness to practice in the context of thepublic interests engaged, and this involves consideration of her insight into the gravity ofthe matters in issue and her insight as to the standards of behavior required by members ofthe profession of pharmacy. The fact is that, when Miss Vora removed the ClenilModulate inhaler on 13 July 2011 in order to compel Mrs R to return and pay the sum sherequired, she showed no insight. When she refused to listen to reason on 13 and 14 July2011, she showed no insight. In shouting abuse at Mrs R and Mrs McKenzie, even whenshe knew that a complaint might well be made, she showed no insight. Given her trenchantdenial of the facts as we have found them to be, it is indeed difficult to say that Miss Vorahas any real insight today.There has been no remediation. In the absence of any real insight, and given the extreme
21attitude displayed by Miss Vora in the past, we consider that the risk of recurrence of adeparture from proper standards is significant.Mr McCartney submits that Miss Vora's conduct was not egregious. We disagree. Leavingaside the issue of insight and risk of recurrence, we consider that this is, in any event, acase where the need to declare and maintain the requirement for adherence to theobligation to provide any medicine duly prescribed by a doctor, as well as adherence tohigh standards of conduct towards patients, requires that a finding of impairment is madeso as to maintain public confidence in the profession.We are satisfied that Miss Vora's misconduct in respect of the proven allegations wasserious and that her fitness to practice is impaired by reason of such misconduct.We proceed to the next stage and we will hear submissions on sanction.--------------------------
Page 1 and 2: 1GENERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COUNCILFITN
Page 3 and 4: 3Pharmacy technicians.6. You were a
Page 5 and 6: 5"In some contexts a Court or Tribu
Page 7 and 8: 7that she was so shocked to have be
Page 9 and 10: 9and Mrs McKenzie attended, and who
Page 11 and 12: 11The issue is whether the confiden
Page 13 and 14: 13only telling Betsy that she could
Page 15 and 16: 15FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE129
Page 17 and 18: 17have the item until she paid this
Page 19: 19affect their care or safety."Prin
Page 23 and 24: 23DETERMINATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON
Page 25 and 26: 25written on the basis that Miss Vo
Page 27 and 28: 27confidence.Mr McCartney has sugge
Page 29 and 30: 29GENERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COUNCILFIT
Page 31 and 32: 31necessary for the protection of m

Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?