Westminster doctor suspended after signing prescriptions for patients including some who don't exist
| Published date | 15 April 2024 |
| Publication title | MyLondon (England) |
A number of conditions were imposed upon his practice for 24 months. However, in April 2023, the Professional Standards Authority appealed to the High Court contesting the decision. The High Court quashed the sanction and ordered it be reviewed, due to “inadequate and unclear reasoning”.
As was found in the original tribunal, and which was admitted by Professor Lingam, he had transcribed, signed and issued 299 prescriptions for a company called Kool Pharma to patients based overseas. Professor Lingam claimed he believed he was partaking in humanitarian work, with the medication being sent to people living in ‘developing’ countries.
However, the tribunal found that he failed to adequately investigate where the prescriptions were going, with no information on patients’ medical history or proof of identity, and that overseas consultants were requesting medication for individuals based in countries other than their own. Some recipients were also based in ‘more economically developed countries’ where they could expect to receive the medication themselves, and others were later found to not even exist.
Professor Lingam had acknowledged he had acted in an ‘irresponsible and unsafe manner’, and that his actions could have led to patient harm or death. Concern was however raised at the lack of action taken to improve his understanding of the misconduct, and that the Professor “did not fully appear to understand why his actions were wrong”.
‘Cavalier attitude’ to prescribing
At the remittal tribunal, Saul Brody, on behalf of the General Medical Council GMC, submitted that a suspension would be a more appropriate sanction for Professor Lingam. He argued the professor adopted a ‘cavalier attitude’ to prescribing, and had failed to fully acknowledge the gravity of his actions. He added the number of prescriptions issued was high, and that a suspension would “act as a deterrent and would send a signal to the doctor, the profession and the public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting of a doctor”.
Professor Lingam countered saying he had taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial