B.C. Pharmacist Wins Partial Victory in Discrimination Case After Being Barred From Practicing While on Opioid Treatment
A British Columbia pharmacist has secured a partial victory in a human rights case after being initially denied the right to return to work due to his use of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction. While a tribunal ultimately sided with the College of Pharmacists of B.C. on its decision to not reinstate the pharmacist, it did find that Dr. Mandy Manak, the physician who assessed the pharmacist’s fitness to practice, made discriminatory comments.
The pharmacist, who voluntarily left his position in 2015 due to his struggles with opioid addiction, was prescribed Suboxone in 2016. He aimed to return to work in 2017 but was deemed unfit for duty by Dr. Manak, who raised concerns about his use of Suboxone while working as a clinical pharmacist who handles opioids. This decision led the pharmacist to file a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination based on his disability, specifically his opioid addiction.
The tribunal’s decision, released last month, acknowledged the complexities of the situation. While it affirmed that Dr. Manak’s professional medical opinion regarding the pharmacist’s fitness to practice was justified, the tribunal found that some of her comments reflected harmful stereotypes about people with substance use disorder.
The tribunal highlighted several concerning statements made by Dr. Manak during her assessment, including questioning the pharmacist’s weight loss as a "red flag" and labelling his regular exercise routine as "compulsive behavior."
The decision reads, "[Dr. Manak] seemed to cast doubt on the pharmacist’s claim that he had been able to live off of savings while unemployed, saying it "defie[d] logic" that he could afford drugs, rehab and everyday expenses. These comments strongly suggest that Dr. Manak believed he was earning money nefariously, specifically by drug dealing."
Tribunal member Beverly Froese wrote, "Even though I have dismissed part of the complaint against Dr. Manak, there is no question in my mind that the Pharmacist acted in good faith and from a sincere belief that he had been discriminated against."
Dr. Manak was ordered to pay the pharmacist over $8,100 in compensation, including $7,500 for injury to his dignity and feelings.
The case sheds light on the challenges faced by healthcare workers struggling with addiction who want to return to their professions.
While the pharmacist himself presented Dr. Wood’s expert testimony affirming his suitability to return to work and successfully secured a new full-time pharmacist position, the tribunal’s decision reflects the ongoing need for understanding and support for individuals in recovery, particularly within high-stakes professions like pharmacy.
Multimedia Elements: (Retain as they were in the original article. Six images and captions)
## Pharmacist Wins Partial Victory in Discrimination Case, Exposing Bias Against Addiction Recovery
**Vancouver, BC** - A recent human rights tribunal decision in British Columbia has brought to light the complex challenges faced by healthcare professionals recovering from addiction who seek to return to their fields. While the tribunal ultimately sided with the College of Pharmacists of BC in its decision not to immediately reinstate a pharmacist prescribed Suboxone for opioid addiction, it found that the physician assessing his fitness to practice made discriminatory remarks based on harmful stereotypes.
This case,which involved a pharmacist wanting to return to work after successfully using Suboxone for recovery,has ignited discussions about the stigma surrounding addiction,particularly within healthcare circles. to gain deeper insights into this complex issue, we interview **Dr. Emily Carter**, a leading addiction medicine specialist, and **Monisha Sharma, J.D.,** a legal expert specializing in employment discrimination.
### Navigating Recovery and Re-Entry into Healthcare
**DW:** Dr. Carter, how common is it for healthcare professionals to face difficulties returning to work after experiencing addiction and undergoing treatment?
**Dr. Carter:** Sadly,it’s more common than we’d like to admit. The very nature of healthcare can be demanding, and individuals struggling with addiction may face unique pressures. There can be fear of judgment, concerns about licensing repercussions, and a lack of adequate support systems within their professions.
**DW:** Monisha, from a legal perspective, what are the main challenges faced by healthcare workers with a history of addiction who aim to return to practice?
**Monisha Sharma:** The biggest hurdle is often demonstrating fitness to practice, which can be a subjective assessment. There’s a risk of unconscious bias where employers or licensing bodies may perceive the individual’s addiction history as a sign of ongoing risk,even with prosperous treatment and recovery.
### Deconstructing Discriminatory Stereotypes
**DW**: The tribunal highlighted concerning comments made by the physician assessing the pharmacist’s fitness to practice. Dr. Carter, what kind of harmful stereotypes are we seeing in this case?
**Dr. Carter:** The physician’s remarks reveal a deeply ingrained prejudice that associates addiction with dishonesty and lack of professionalism. Statements like questioning the pharmacist’s ability to manage his finances despite displaying counseling,commitment to his well-being,and having secured a new position all point to a biased perception fueled by stigma.
**DW:** Monisha, what legal recourse do individuals have when they face discriminatory practices based on their addiction history?
**Monisha Sharma:**
Individuals can file complaints with human rights tribunals, as seen in this case. Laws vary by jurisdiction, but generally prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, which can include addiction.
It’s crucial to build robust legal precedents that clearly define what constitutes discrimination against individuals in recovery.
### Moving Towards a More Inclusive Healthcare Landscape
**DW**: What steps can healthcare institutions take to create a more welcoming and supportive environment for professionals
in recovery?
**Dr. Carter:**
We need a multifaceted approach:
* **Education:** Training healthcare providers on addiction as a medical condition, dispelling stigma, and fostering empathy.
* **Peer Support Programs**: Creating confidential support groups where individuals can connect and share experiences.
* **Clear Policies**: Developing policies that clearly outline procedures for evaluating fitness to practice, ensuring fairness and due process.
**DW**: Monisha, what changes would you like to see in legislation or regulations to protect the rights of healthcare workers with a history of addiction?
**Monisha Sharma:**
I would advocate for stricter enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Additionally, we need legislation that explicitly prohibits using an individual’s past addiction as a sole grounds for denying licensure or employment unless there are demonstrably credible concerns regarding public safety.
**Key Takeaways**
This case highlights the urgent need to address the stigma surrounding addiction recovery within healthcare. We must create a more inclusive and supportive environment for healthcare professionals seeking to return to their professions.
**Take Action**:
Share your thoughts on this issue using the hashtag **#HealthcareInRecovery**.
**Related Reading**:
* “The Stigma of Addiction in Healthcare”
* “Building Support Systems for Healthcare Professionals in recovery”
