Lansley pledges to investigate community pharmacist over disability discrimination

At this point, the article does not give any details of the incident. Before I nail the pharmacist, I would certainly look in to the following points.

1. How blind was the patient?

2. How many tablets does he/she take?

3. Is he/she been looked after by a carer or he/she manages the tablets.

4. What condition is the patient being treated?

5. Does the pharmacist charge all patients for this service or is it the only such incidence he has asked for payment?

In my view, the pharmacist should have provided the MDS service as a goodwill gesture to an incapacitated person even if it was for a single medicine. But again we don't know the complete case. What if it was just for some ibuprofen or paracetamol ?? Again, if the person is completely blind and there is no carer, then how much value would a Dossette box add? what if he takes wrong medicines at wrong times?? Can some-one post the actual case please, so we know what has happened and also learn from this case.

We need the details of the case before we can comment fully, but this was bound to happen at some point. The current contractual framework for community pharmacy is woefully inadequate in this regard and what is reasonable is very subjective.
What annoys me the most is Lansley pledging to look in to it - I bet if a pharmacist had asked for something to be looked in to he wouldn't. The usual response is that they can't get involved in individual cases.

I am concerned about the suggestion to supply MDS as a good-will gesture. It surely should be supplied if it is warrented. It may be possible that it was not, in the pharmacists opinion, a suitable adjustment but the carers/family may have insisted on an Dosette box, at which point the pharmacist may have (quite rightly, if this is the case) informed them that there would be a charge as the patient falls outside DDA. I only hope the pharmacist in question has a record of the assessment

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS CASE IN DETAIL BEFORE ACCUSING THE PHARMACIST.I AM SURPRISED THAT MR LANSLEY IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS INCIDENT AND INVESTIGATE PERSONALLY.SHOULD HE NOT HAVE LEFT TO THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES NAMELY GPHC,RPSGB.PSNC,ETC.I WONDER WHETHER HE WOULD INVESTIGATE INTO OUR REMUNERATION AND COME UP WITH A DECENT PAY PACKAGE.

I have a question, why is Andrew Lansley no where to be seen when we bring up the issues of things like Branded Prescribing, Script Direction, or so called supply of dressings etc via NHS trusts just so the PCT's save on prescription fee's?? Where is Andrew Lansley when every contractor in Britain is being ripped off?

I guess he's busy occupying his time with the one incident of charging for a dosset box by one pharmacy which may have been an error on their behalf. I don't know the specifics of this case so won't comment but I don't see why Andrew Lansley is making a mountain out of a mole hill when there are unethical mountains out there which pharmacy is being crucified by financially.

At the end of the day Andrew Lansley is a politician and I'm guessing he's well on the way of losing the vote from pharmacy. Well right as things are now they've lost my vote, roll on the elections.

Well Stephen,

It was just my opinion. We are yet to find out what exactly happened. These politicians use such silly incidences to gain a political advantage. What I meant was, if the pharmacist had done all necessary analysis and then found that the patient was not a candidate for the dossette box due to a minor hitch then as a goodwill (humanitarian) I would do it. But, if the pharmacist was bullied or put under pressure by the patient/ carer/ family to put him on dossette box, despite not qualifying for it, then the pharmacist should not be blamed. As long as the pharmacist was covinced that the patient was able to receive his medicines properly without the MDS the he has done nothing wrong. Just playing the card of disability is not right. On the other hand, don't you think many pharmacists are ready to offer MDS to people on multiple medicines so that their script count stays.

In any case, the debate cannot go further without proper details about the case and it is an childish attempt by Mr. Lansley in involving himself and making such comments, just to make the political clad comfortable.