Feedback for Proposed Changes to the Public Register – Phase 2 (By-law No 3)Pharmacist · Feb. 8, 2015
I think caution should be exercised with some of the wording of the amendments.
220.127.116.11 "the Registrar believes that they are relevant to the member’s suitability to practise" The above statement is a very much a gray zone, since what may be relevant today, may not be relevant tomorrow or vice-versa. I think strict criteria should be determined on what is relevant and what is not, since the relevancy may be determined on the registrar's biases at that time.
18.104.22.168 I would like to see this statement changed to a member being found guilty. An investigation made public, automatically makes the member guilty in the eyes of the public. This would have long-term ramifications on the member's reputation as well as the reputation of their business, especially if the member is innocent. Unfortunately fewer people are likely to read the full details or even the notation nowadays.
Transparency is very important, but should we do it at a risk of compromising an innocent member's livelihood? I don't think we should forget the old adage, 'innocent until proven guilty'.Reply or Back