‘Friendly’ Visits and ‘Evil Men’: The Home Office Drugs Inspectorate (original) (raw)
There was a sort of general feeling amongst doctors that if you were interviewed by one inspector, you were OK but if two of us turned up you were in trouble. And I think that a number of doctors who were then treating addicts [in the mid-1980s] were sort of advised if they carried on like this they could end up in tribunal and a number of them bailed out from treating addicts, a lot of private doctors said ‘I don’t need this aggro’.1
Notes
- H. B. Spear (and ed. J. Mott), Heroin Addiction Care and Control: The ‘British System’ 1916–1984 (London: DrugScope, 2002), p. 35.
Google Scholar - H. B. Spear placed its origins in 1916 when the Home Secretary authorised a temporary administrative assistant, A. J. Anderson, to inspect records of cocaine supplies which pharmacists had been required to keep from earlier the same year. 1920 was the year of the Dangerous Drugs Act which required pharmacy inspections, and Gerald Rhodes gave that year for the establishment of the Inspectorate, but provided no source, see G. Rhodes, Inspectorates in British Government. Law Enforcement and Standards of Efficiency, Royal Institute of Public Administration (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1981), p. 253. Margaret Stacey seemed confused by what she called the Home Office’s ‘drug squad’ the origins of which she placed in the late 1960s,
Google Scholar - see M. Stacey, Regulating British Medicine: the General Medical Council (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1992), p. 32.
Google Scholar - J. Scullion, Witness Statement (10th March 2003), Document WS 35 00001, The Shipman Inquiry, www.theshipmaninquiry.org.uk.
Google Scholar - A. Stears, Witness Statement (31st August 1999), Document WS 34 00001, The Shipman Inquiry, www.theshipmaninquiry.org.uk.
Google Scholar - V. Berridge and G. Edwards, Opium and the People. Opiate Use in Nineteenth-Century England (first published 1981 London: Allen Lane; this edition New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1987), p. 3.
Google Scholar - V. Berridge, Opium and the People (Free Association Books, London: 1999), p. 238.
Google Scholar - V. Berridge, ‘Drugs and social policy: the establishment of drug control in Britain, 1900–30’, British Journal of Addiction, 79 (1984), 17–29.
Article Google Scholar - V. Berridge, ‘War conditions and narcotics control: the passing of Defence of the Realm Act Regulation 40B’, Journal of Social Policy, 19 (1978), 285–304.
Article Google Scholar - The Shipman Inquiry, Fourth Report — The Regulation of Controlled Drugs in the Community (London: HMSO, 2004), pp. 45–46.
Google Scholar - J. E. Hayzelden, Letter to Chief Officer of Police, Re Home Office Circular 25/1980 Inspection of Pharmacies (12th March 1980), Document WM 17 00062, The Shipman Inquiry, www.theshipmaninquiry.org.uk.
Google Scholar - See Working Party of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Royal College of Physicians, Drugs, Dilemmas and Choices (Gaskell: London, 2000), pp. 206–210.
Google Scholar - Departmental Committee on Morphine and Heroin Addiction, Report [Rolleston Report] (London: HMSO, 1926), p. 5.
Google Scholar - K. Leech, ‘Bing Spear: appreciations’, in H. B. Spear (and ed. J. Mott), Heroin Addiction Care and Control: The ‘British System’ 1916–1984 (London: DrugScope, 2002), pp. ix–xi.
Google Scholar - For example, J. Mott, Personal Communication (2005).
Google Scholar - Home Office Drugs Branch Inspectorate, Annual Report 1987 (London: Home Office, 1988), Ref. 52150, DrugScope Library, London.
Google Scholar - Home Office Drugs Branch Inspectorate, Annual Report 1985 (London: Home Office, 1986) Ref. 52186, DrugScope Library, London. p. 21.
Google Scholar - See, for instance, historical introduction to P. Spurgeon, ‘Crack and other drugs — myth or menace?’ Looking Ahead 1989 Conference Report (Swindon: Swindon Crime Concern, 1989), pp. 3–4.
Google Scholar - Hansard, House of Lords (14th January 1971), Vol 314, col. 245.
Google Scholar - Home Office Drugs Branch Inspectorate, Annual Report 1985 (London: Home Office, 1986) Ref. 52186, DrugScope Library, London, p. 11.
Google Scholar - J. Scullion, Transcript of Day 149 (27th June 2003), The Shipman Inquiry, www.theshipmaninquiry.org.uk.
Google Scholar - P. G. Spurgeon, Letter to all Chief Police Officers Re Notes for Chemist Inspecting Officers (17th March 1988), Document WM 17 00163, The Shipman Inquiry, http://www.theshipmaninquiry.org.uk.
Google Scholar - M. Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds. and trans.) (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946, this edition, 1964), pp. 228–240.
Google Scholar - D. Musto, ‘Bing Spear: appreciations’, in H. B. Spear (and ed. J. Mott), Heroin Addiction Care and Control: The ‘British System’ 1916–1984 (London: DrugScope, 2002), pp. viii–ix.
Google Scholar - P. Bean, ‘Policing the medical profession: the use of Tribunals’, in D. K. Whynes and P. T. Bean (eds.), Policing and Prescribing. The British System of Drug Control (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991), pp. 60–70.
Chapter Google Scholar - Department of Health and Social Security, Department of Education and Science, Home Office and Manpower Services Commission, Misuse of Drugs with Special Reference to the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Misusers of Hard Drugs: Government Response to the Fourth Report from the Social Services Committee Session 1984–85 (London: HMSO, 1985), pp. 18–19.
Google Scholar - A. D. Macfarlane, CGWG (97) 3, Pharmaceutical Diversion and the Prescribing Dimension. Note by the Home Office Drugs Inspectorate’ (3rd March 1997), Private archive.
Google Scholar - Thorley, CGWG (97) 17, ‘Clinical Guidelines Working Group (attached to CGWG(97)17 ‘Note by the Home Office on Licensing’), Home Office Licensing: The Options for Encouraging Good Clinical Practice’) (May 1997), File 16 TFD-46 Vol 5, DH Archive, Nelson, Lancashire.
Google Scholar - See A. Macfarlane, ‘Changes to the misuse of drugs legislation of controlled drugs prescribe in the treatment of addiction’, [Consultation document] (London: Action Against Drugs Unit, Home Office, 17th March 2000).
Google Scholar - For example, B. Beaumont, T. Carnworth, W. Clee, et al., ‘Licensing doctors counters the National Strategy’, Druglink, 15(6) (2001), 25.
Google Scholar - R. G. Smith, Medical Discipline: The Professional Conduct Jurisdiction of the General Medical Council, 1858–1990 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 168–169.
Google Scholar - Home Office, Guidance to Chemist Inspecting Officers (Home Office, London: 2002), Document WM 17 00388, The Shipman Inquiry, www.theshipmaninquiry.org.uk.
Google Scholar - Home Office Drugs Inspectorate, ‘Irresponsible prescribing enquiries: Investigation, preparation and presentation of evidence’ (1983), Private archive.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee, Day Three (8th March 1984), Case of Tarnesby, Herman Peter, T. A. Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London. p. 17.
Google Scholar - See Medical Working Group on Drug Dependence, Guidelines of Good Practice in the Treatment of Drug Misuse (London: DHSS, 1984).
Google Scholar - See Department of Health, Scottish Office Home and Health Department and Welsh Office, Drug Misuse and Dependence. Guidelines on Clinical Management (London: HMSO, 1991)
Google Scholar - See UK Health Departments, Drug Misuse and Dependence. Guidelines on Clinical Management (London: The Stationery Office, 1999).
Google Scholar - For example, T. Bewley and A. H. Ghodse, ‘Unacceptable face of private practice: prescription of controlled drugs to addicts’, British Medical Journal, 286 (1983), 1876–1877.
Article Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee, Day One (9th December 1986), Case of Dally, Ann Gwendolen, T A Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London. p. 1/50.
Google Scholar - Drugs Branch Inspectorate, Annual Report 1986 (London: Home Office, 1987), Ref. 49910, DrugScope Library, London.
Google Scholar - For example, T. Bewley, ‘The Illicit Drug Scene’, British Medical Journal, 2 (1975), 318–320.
Article Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee, Day One (9th December 1986), Case of Dally, Ann Gwendolen, T A Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London, p. 1/45.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee, Day Three (8th March 1984), Case of Tarnesby, Herman Peter, T. A. Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London, pp. 12–15.
Google Scholar - Home Office, Report of a Tribunal Set Up Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to enquire into the Conduct of Dr John Adrian Garfoot MB BS MRCS LRCP, 1994 (Dr Garfoot, Private archive), pp. 4–5.
Google Scholar - House of Commons, Minutes of Evidence Taken before the Social Services Committee (6th February 1985), Misuse of Drugs with Special Reference to the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Misusers of Hard Drugs, Fourth Report from the Social Services Committee Session 1984–85 (London: HSMO, 1985), pp. 14–21.
Google Scholar - H. B. Spear, Letter to H. P. Tarnesby (17th June 1982), quoted in GMC, Professional Conduct Committee. Day Three (8th March 1984), Case of Tarnesby, Herman Peter, T. A. Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London, p. 20.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee. Day Four (9th March 1984) Case of Tarnesby, Herman Peter, T A Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London, p. 77.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee, Day One (9th December 1986), Case of Dally, Ann Gwendolen, T A Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London, p. 1/85.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee. Day Four, (9th March 1984), p. 48.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee. Day Three (8th March 1984), Case of Tarnesby, Herman Peter, T. A. Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London, p. 17.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee. Day Four, (9th March 1984) op. cit. p. 78.
Google Scholar - J. Merritt, ‘Doctors who trade in misery’, Dally Mirror (18th February 1982), 7–8.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee. Day Three (8th March 1984) op. cit., p. 3.
Google Scholar - GMC, Professional Conduct Committee, Day Two (7th March 1984), Case of Tarnesby, Herman Peter, T. A. Reed & Co. [transcript], GMC Archive, London, pp. 39–91.
Google Scholar - Foucault, M. The Birth of the Clinic. An Archaeology of Medical Perception, translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith (first published 1963, Presses Universitaires de France, this edition, New York: Vintage Books, 1994).
Google Scholar - Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison, translated by A. Sheridan (first published 1975, Edition Gallimard; this edition Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1991), pp. 257–292.
Google Scholar - F. Driver, ‘Bodies in space. Foucault’s account of disciplinary power’ in C. Jones and R. Porter (eds.), Reassessing Foucault: Power, Medicine and the Body (London and New York: Routledge, 1998, first published 1994), pp. 113–131.
Google Scholar - D. Armstrong, Political Anatomy of the Body. Medical Knowledge in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 7–18.
Google Scholar - A. Burr, ‘The Piccadilly drug scene’, British Journal of Addiction, 78, 1 (1983), 5–19.
Article Google Scholar - S. MacGregor, ‘Policy Responses to the Drugs Problem’, in Responding to Drug Misuse. Research and Policy Priorities in Health and Social Care, ed. S. MacGregor (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 1–13.
Google Scholar - HM Government, Safer Management of Controlled Drugs. The Government’s Response to the Fourth Report of the Shipman Inquiry (London: 2004), pp. 16–17. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4097904
Google Scholar