A pharmacist who attempted suicide partly over a fitness-to-practise issue has told C+D he has felt "harassed and hounded" by further resulting fitness-to-practise proceedings, which have made it impossible for him to find work.

Paul Badham, registration number 2021446, became stressed when the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) found he had accidentally mixed up old and new stock in his pharmacy in 2010. Despite good reports from his colleagues, no prior mistakes in his career and meeting all standards in a subsequent inspection, he was issued with a formal warning in 2011.

Mr Badham kept "replaying and replaying" the error and this was a factor in him taking a methadone overdose later that year. Since then, the regulator has imposed conditions on his registration that have left him unable to find work and treated him like a "criminal", he told C+D.

The GPhC told C+D it was unable to comment on individual cases.

Mr Badham started a refit in his pharmacy, Lynton Pharmacy in Lynton, Devon, in September 2009. At the time, he was taking increasing amounts of citalopram for OCD and anxiety and found the refit a "stressful" experience.

Having received positive reports, the inspector informed Mr Badham that the GPhC was dropping the case. In another inspection two months later, Mr Badham's pharmacy was found to comply with all professional standards.

But Mr Badham was shocked to receive an official fitness-to-practise warning in summer 2011. This was one of the factors that led Mr Badham to take a methadone overdose three months later, which left him in hospital. "It wasn't the whole reason but I just couldn't let it go," he said.

This led the GPhC to place an interim suspension order on Mr Badham's registration in November 2011 and he attended a private fitness-to-practise hearing in April 2012. As a result of the hearing, the GPhC revoked the suspension and imposed conditions on Mr Badham's registration that stipulated he could not work as a responsible pharmacist and must be under supervision.

Mr Badham went on to work as an accuracy checking technician at his brother's pharmacy. But the GPhC was "convinced" he was working as a locum, Mr Badham said, and he was treated like a "criminal" at his review hearings.

Mr Badham asked to postpone one hearing due to injuring his knee, which made it difficult to walk, and he was prescribed medication. He was accused of lying about the injury at his eventual hearing in December 2013, when the GPhC representative said he had been "scared" of facing the regulator, he told C+D. The representative also highlighted his stammer, which Mr Badham has had since the age of eight, as evidence he was "stressed".

The GPhC has now accepted that Mr Badham is clinically capable of working as a responsible pharmacist, following positive reports from doctors, occupational health and psychological assessments. But he continues to have conditions on his registration that stipulate he must only work for three non-consecutive days a week and that a supervisor and a mentor must send a report to the GPhC every three months. These conditions had left him unable to find work, he said.

Mr Badham requested an early review hearing in March, but his next review hearing is scheduled for December. The GPhC has also suggested that he voluntarily removes himself from the register, Mr Badham said.

Mr Badham told C+D he felt "very harshly" treated by the regulator, especially because he held a previously unblemished career and "outstanding" references from colleagues. "I have made no dispensing errors in a 37-year career. Even leading up to my suicide attempt, I was still totally professional," he said.

The GPhC had offered no support and his treatment had been "appalling", he added. "I have been harassed and hounded for the last four years," he said. "They have no intention of letting me practice unfettered."

David Reissner comments on the GPhC's role in the light of Paul Badham's FTP experience

	What do you make of Paul Badham's case?