This site is intended for Healthcare Professionals only

Editor's view: GPhC must give public answers over antisemitism case

Views

Editor's view: GPhC must give public answers over antisemitism case

I haven’t always been comfortable with the way the General Pharmaceutical Council has performed since its creation 14 years ago but it recently left me feeling more concerned than usual.

That was because of its reticence over a particularly unsettling case involving Mohammad Al Accad, a trainee pharmacist in Manchester who posted a vicious antisemitic message on social media on the day of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel. 

Responding to a post by the Israel Society at University College London condemning the brutal assault, he wrote: “F*** you and your people, hope we kill hundreds more in the coming days.”

Last month, he pleaded guilty at Manchester Magistrates’ Court to sending a “grossly offensive message.” The court gave him a £675 fine and ordered him to pay costs.

‘Is that supposed to deter other people from publicly calling for the murder of Jews?’ I thought. Six months unpaid work for a Jewish charity and antisemitism awareness training would have been far better.

In any case, I wanted to know if the GPhC intended to do anything regarding Al Accad’s antisemitism. It said it “cannot comment on individual cases.” It did say it expects education and training providers to “consider any fitness to practise concerns about their students or trainees.”

The GPhC also said it expects providers “to bring matters relating to the conduct” of pharmacy professionals and trainees to its attention so “it can take action where necessary.”

But crucially, we don’t know if the GPhC took any steps to find out if the pharmacy Al Accad was working in at the time considered “any fitness to practise concerns” about him. Or if the pharmacy brought “matters relating” to his appalling conduct to the GPhC’s attention. The GPhC didn’t even say if it was looking into the incident.

So, I asked the pharmacy if Al Accad still worked there and if it had contacted the GPhC but the pharmacy did not respond. In the interest of protecting the public and upholding standards and public trust in pharmacy - the GPhC’s own raison d’être - it’s important to get answers.

In this instance, “we cannot comment on individual cases” is not good enough.

Neil Trainis is the editor of Independent Community Pharmacist.

 

Copy Link copy link button

Views

Share:

Change privacy settings