A Dunedin pharmacist has written to his customers explaining why he breached pharmacy rules he says were not consistent with his duty of care to patients.
Ravi Vohora, owner of Maori Hill Pharmacy, faces a six-month suspension of his practising certificate, after the High Court decision last month upholding a Health Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal finding of malpractice.
However, the High Court imposed a six-month suspension, revoking the cancellation imposed by the tribunal.
Yesterday, Mr Vohora told the Otago Daily Times he had until the middle of next week to appeal the High Court decision, and had not made a decision.
Justice Christian Whata found Mr Vohora knowingly acted in dereliction of his duty in failing to keep a controlled drug register for more than four years, and in failing to document standard operating procedures for 10 years or longer.
However, Justice Whata found there was no evidence of harm to patients, and Mr Vohora had always acted with due care when dispensing medicines.
Mr Vohora recently wrote to customers to explain his "principled protest" against a part of the pharmacy code that had since changed, describing it as a contest between "might and right".
"I noticed that the recommendations did not bear much resemblance to, and were not a codification of, customary pharmacy practice.
"A matter of more concern to me was that these recommendations departed from customary practice to such an extent they were actually contrary to the legal requirements relating to pharmacists' duty of care to their patients," the letter said.
Initially, about 60 pharmacists resisted, but the resistance dwindled to almost nothing when faced with "intimidation" from regulators.
"Like me, most Kiwis will be surprised and disturbed that such a flagrant abuse of power could have occurred in New Zealand."
"Not to have made the stand that I did make would have amounted to an abrogation of my professional and civic duties."
Patient safety was of "paramount importance" to him, and the legal action resulting from his protest amounted to a "denial of natural justice".
The "barmy" pharmacy standards were removed from the pharmacy code of ethics from the end of 2010.
However, the authorities proceeded with the legal charges in a "stupendous abuse of power".
Mr Vohora said yesterday he had had a positive response to his letters from customers, and also from a small number of doctors.
In his decision, Justice Whata noted the "latest submissions on [Mr Vohora's] behalf suggest that he feels vindicated by the recent version of the [pharmacy] code, which now reflects his longstanding position.
"Apparently, he is happy to comply with them.
"That might be so, but the court's concern is that Mr Vohora and other practitioners need to understand that compliance with minimum standards is mandatory, not discretionary."
