We ought to retain physical presence of a pharmacist

THE pilot scheme of providing a robotic pharmacy service in remote or rural areas is an interesting concept (“Robotic pharmacy prescribed as an answer for rural patients”, The Herald, July 13).

As the dispensing of prescriptions, and the supply of pharmacy-only medicines, may only be made by, or under the supervision of, a pharmacist (other than by a dispensing doctor), this calls into question the legal definition of “supervision”. This has been interpreted as the physical presence of a pharmacist who must be in a position to intervene, in the case of the supply of a pharmacy-only medicine, should the pharmacist consider that such a supply would not be in the best interest of the potential purchaser. Similarly the issuing of an already dispensed medicine in the absence of a pharmacist is not permitted.

While it would appear that the idea of the siting of robotic pharmacies is intended to provide a valuable service in areas where a pharmacy would not be viable, it does raise the issue of the system being extended to urban areas where the employment of a highly trained pharmacist within a registered pharmacy could be dispensed with (no pun intended).

Such a proposition would be highly attractive to the operators of multinational owned pharmacies should the definition of “supervision” be redefined to include a pharmacist overseeing several pharmacies from a central location.

It would seem to this traditionalist that, while the robotic system may well be suited to remote areas, the readily available physical presence of a pharmacist in pharmacies is the preferred option. Malcolm Allan, 2 Tofthill Gardens, Bishopbriggs.