28 Oct 2024
London-based Nicola Jane Gurrin admitted writing prescriptions for isotretinoin for the treatment of an animal, when it was in fact intended for a human.
Paul Imrie
Job Title
Image © Andy Dean / Adobe Stock
A vet who admitted issuing a veterinary prescription intended for human use has been given a reprimand and warning by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee (DC).
London-based Nicola Jane Gurrin admitted to writing prescriptions indicating the prescribed medicine was for the treatment of an animal, when it was in fact intended for the treatment of a human.
She also admitted her conduct had been dishonest and/or misleading when she had written the prescriptions for 30 tablets of Roaccutane 20mg (isotretinoin) and/or for 30 tablets of Roaccutane 10mg, and that she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for a human.
While the DC accepted Dr Gurrin’s conduct involved dishonesty, in that a veterinary prescription was written for medication intended for human treatment, it took into account the context – that Dr Gurrin was seeking to help in continuing a course of medication that she understood to have been properly prescribed by a specialist physician.
Mitigating factors included the lack of artifice or sophistication in the drawing of a prescription and its presentation to the pharmacist.
In considering a sanction, the DC took into account Dr Gurrin did not attempt to invent an animal name or species, or any kind of elaboration or backstory when challenged by the pharmacist on the prescription; it involved no financial or personal gain; it was an isolated incident; it was on the spur of the moment; no harm was caused to an animal; she showed insight; and she had an unblemished career.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The committee has reached the conclusion that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand and a warning in this case. It would serve no purpose to impose a more severe sanction of a suspension and deprive Dr Gurrin’s clients of her valuable service and to deprive Dr Gurrin of the opportunity to practise for however short a time.
“The committee considered that it is right to recognise that this misconduct was an aberration in a fine career, which is not characteristic of this veterinary surgeon and which happened when she was off her guard and in circumstances when she was mistakenly trying to help another in what she thought was a safe way.
“The committee therefore decided, in the particular circumstance of this case, to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
