Heath fined for breaches


‘‘ It is just as well he took ad­vice from his solic­i­tor . . . to pull his head in and join the so­ci­ety.’’

Wanaka phar­ma­cist Aaron Heath’s long-held, ’’rooted ob­jec­tion’’ to join­ing the Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal So­ci­ety has re­sulted in cen­sure for prac­tis­ing for nearly two months in 2015 with­out a prac­tis­ing cer­tifi­cate.

The Health Prac­ti­tion­ers Dis­ci­plinary Tri­bunal also fined Heath $1250 and or­dered him to pay to­tal costs of $10,979.71, after a hear­ing in Christchurch on Septem­ber 13.

The Phar­macy Coun­cil of New Zealand’s pro­fes­sional con­duct com­mit­tee laid dis­ci­plinary charges against Heath un­der the Health Prac­ti­tion­ers As­sur­ance Act 2003, after Heath failed to ap­ply for his cer­tifi­cate by April 1, 2015.

The tri­bunal heard that Heath had ap­plied by email, in­stead of the re­quired hard copy, at 10.18pm on March 31, 2015 less than two hours be­fore his cer­tifi­cate ex­pired at mid­night.

His ap­pli­ca­tion was re­jected be­cause it was in­com­plete in re­la­tion to his com­pli­ance with so­ci­ety re­quire­ments.

After much to-ing and fro-ing of cor­re­spon­dence, his hard copy ap­pli­ca­tion was re­ceived and ap­proved on May 22, 2015.

It was the third time Heath had failed to ap­ply on time.

In 2010 and 2014, the coun­cil sought ex­pla­na­tions but took no fur­ther ac­tion.

In 2014 Heath was put on no­tice to par­tic­i­pate in the coun­cil- ap­proved re­cer­ti­fi­ca­tion gramme from then on.

Heath’s con­sci­en­tious ob­jec­tion to the EN­HANCE re­cer­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­gramme pro­vided by the Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal So­ci­ety of New Zealand was out­lined in an agreed state­ment of facts.

EN­HANCE is the only coun­cilap­proved mech­a­nism for com­plet­ing con­tin­u­ing pro­fes­sional devel­op­ment. It is the only op­tion phar­ma­cists have got to ver­ify com­pli­ance.

In an Oc­to­ber 6 de­ci­sion, the tri­bunal noted Heath’s ’’long­stand­ing dif­fer­ences’’ with the so­ci­ety and ‘‘rooted ob­jec­tion’’ to be­com­ing a mem­ber.

The tri­bunal stressed Heath had ‘‘con­sis­tently ac­cepted the im­por­tance of [con­tin­u­ing pro­fes­sional devel­op­ment] and, as far as we are aware, completed all nec­es­sary CPD re­quire­ments’’.

He had un­re­servedly apol­o­gised and did not seek sup­pres­sion.

‘‘The charge re­lates to his sta­tus, not his ac­tions,’’ the tri­bunal said.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.