The GPhC has announced that the self-selection of P medicines will remain prohibited until it has published guidance and received full enforcement powers in October 2013. At that time, pharmacies will be able to allow customers to select P medicines if they give the GPhC advance notice, so that it can check that Standards are being followed. P medicines can only lawfully be sold from pharmacy premises by or under the supervision of a pharmacist. The law was tested by Boots in 1951, when self-service in shops was new. Boots allowed customers to select P medicines, put them in wire baskets and take them to the till. Since a pharmacist was in attendance at the till, the High Court and the Court of Appeal held that sale of P medicines had lawfully been made under supervision.

As regulator, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society published Standards, saying "Pharmacy medicines must not be accessible to the public by self-selection". Of course, protecting the public must come before the commercial interests of pharmacy owners, but NHS income has been slashed so severely that pharmacy owners will be under pressure to boost their over-the-counter businesses. The sale of P medicines seems an obvious way of doing this.

The GPhC must believe that self-selection of P medicines should be permitted, since it has pre-announced that it will be allowed from October 2013. The GPhC has come under heavy criticism for this, and has been accused of dereliction of its duty to protect the public. For my part, I do not agree with either position. The GPhC has had 2 years to publish guidance on self-selection. Why does it need a further 12 months? It already has ample powers to prosecute anyone who sells a P medicine without supervision, or to discipline any pharmacist who does not take action to protect the well-being of patients and the public. The GPhC has repeatedly said it believes in setting standards and then allowing pharmacists to work out for themselves how best to follow them. Why should the sale of P medicines be any different?

As for those who object to self-selection, all sales will still require supervision. The court held in the Boots case 60 years ago that this means pharmacists must be in a position to refuse a sale if it would not be appropriate. I suggest pharmacists should be trusted to use their professional judgement and this should be promoted, not undermined by preventing self-selection.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.