OBLIGATIONS ON DOCTORS AND PHARMA CISTS IN RESPECT OF CONTROLLED DRUGS (Hansard, 9 December 1970)

§ Mrs. Renée Short
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose here is to deal with the third most common criminal offence committed by those who are anxious to obtain illegal supplies of controlled drugs, that is, to commit forgery in the use of stolen prescription forms or to make forged alterations or additions to legally obtained prescriptions.
Here again, there has been a clear lead given by the Pharmaceutical Society to the effect that doctors and pharmacists ought to co-operate to eliminate this kind of criminal offence. There have been many cases reported in the Press of forgeries committed in this way, particularly in large cities such as London and Birmingham, but the abuse of drugs is now so widespread that one could probably say with truth that forged prescriptions are to be found in all sorts of places, not just in large cities but, for instance, in respectable seaside towns.
All kinds of people may use stolen prescription forms or make forged alterations to prescriptions obtained legally. It may be not the young person of 16, 17 or 18 but, perhaps, the housewife who is hooked on pep pills, or the professional operator who, armed with a set of stolen 570 prescription forms, is in the market illegally to obtain large supplies of drugs so that he may push them on the black market and thereby make a great deal of money. There has been a call for co-operation between doctors and pharmacists. The hon. Gentleman has not been in a very giving mood this evening, but perhaps he will feel more generous about this.
11.0 p.m.
The only safeguard against the abuse which I have mentioned is for the doctor prescribing drugs to send the prescription to a pharmacist of the patient's choice by post without the patient handling it. This would remove the temptation to alter the prescription so as to obtain a larger supply of the drug. This can be done, but only where doctor, pharmacist and patient agree.
If a pharmacist receives a prescription which he has reason to believe has been altered, or if he thinks that the signature of the doctor is not as it should be, he should be able to refer the person by whom the form is presented to a local doctor for verification. This would be a safeguard where a person presents a prescription to a pharmacist to whom he is not known, perhaps in another town.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the new Clause, or at least part of it.

§ Dr. Stuttaford
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has made some valid points. Very few doctors, if they are honest, would not admit to having had prescription pads stolen from them and used for obtaining drugs illicitly under a forged signature. But the new Clause would present a tremendous problem to the medical profession. The Bill covers an immense list of drugs which are used not only by addicts but by people who are in the terminal stages of carcinoma and may need to get the drug quickly and in a strange town.
I would go along with the hon. Lady as far as I could to try to cut down abuse. I would be happy to have prescription pads of different colours, and I think this would be a good move, but if we make it too difficult to obtain supplies of analgesic drugs which are used legitimately we may hinder the treatment of the sick, so we must be very careful.
571 If a reputable pharmacist receives a doubtful prescription, or if he does not know the patient and the doctor, he can telephone, and many of them do this already.
Secondly, if one has a known addict, most of us already send the prescription to the chemist, who is extremely helpful and will hand out the patient's daily ration, so that the patient does not handle the prescription. Already, therefore, there is a wide measure of cooperation. I should like to see that cooperation further extended, but I do not know that I want legislation for it, just in case the occasional—or not so occasional—patient who may be in considerable pain in a strange city cannot obtain the drugs which he or she needs to relieve the pain.

§ Mr. Sharples
I regret that I shall not be able to please the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and recommend the House to accept the new Clause. There are serious objections to the proposals put forward by the hon. Lady.
First, the new Clause is objectionable because it would remove the existing discretion of patients generally to take their prescriptions to any pharmacist of their choosing. I am certain that the medical profession and the Pharmaceutical Society would strongly resent any external compulsion or interference of this kind in the traditional relationship of voluntary co-operation between practitioners and pharmacists.
I certainly accept that there is danger in the use of stolen prescription pads, which was referred to both by the hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford). As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, however, if a pharmacist is in doubt about the identity of the signatory to a prescription, the right thing for him to do is to refer that doubt to the doctor whom he assumes to have originated it. He can do that, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, by telephone or other means. It is the normal practice of doctors to do that.
The other objection to the hon. Lady's proposal, which, again, was pointed out by my hon. Friend, is that it makes no provision for a patient who is temporarily 572 away from home, on holiday or for other reasons, who may have to take a prescription to a specified pharmacist. It would be impossible to take the prescription to another pharmacist if the patient were to be restricted to one pharmacist.
For those reasons, I am not able to recommend the House to accept the new Clause.

§ Mrs. Renée Short
I pointed out that the pharmacist to whom the prescription would be taken would be the pharmacist of the patient's choice. The Minister is not correct, therefore, to say that my proposal would interfere with the right of a patient to go to a pharmacist of his chosing. I made it clear that the patient would nominate the pharmacist to whom he wanted the prescription form to be sent.
I do not want to divide the House, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the call for this greater co-operation between doctors and pharmacists came from the President of the Pharmaceutical Society. It is not the universal practice, therefore, for doctors to do as the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps the fact that we have had this brief debate will have alerted both doctors and pharmacists to the need for more co-operation. I hope so.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.