Pharmacist reprimanded over inappropriate patient relationships

After a patient’s mother died, a pharmacist used his store’s records to contact her and begin a sexual relationship

The Pharmacy Board has issued a statement about a pharmacist who had sexual relationships with two patients, and urged them to keep quiet.

Timothy Hopwood fronted the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal via videoconference late last month, where he was reprimanded and conditions imposed on his registration.

The Tribunal found him guilty of professional misconduct by having personal and sexual relations with two patients.

In January 2019, one of Mr Hopwood’s patients made a complaint to the Pharmacy Board of Australia. That same month, the Board also became aware of Mr Hopwood’s relationship with another patient.

On 23 August 2019, the Board took interim action to suspend Mr Hopwood’s registration.

The Board alleged that Mr Hopwood had engaged in personal and sexual relationships with two female patients, one of which was an employee, between 2010 and 2018. Further, Mr Hopwood had used his position and knowledge as a pharmacist to pursue a personal relationship with one of the patients.

The Board alleged Mr Hopwood was aware of each patient’s personal issues, which caused them to be psychologically vulnerable.

Further, Mr Hopwood dispensed anti-depressant medication (as prescribed) for each patient.

Mr Hopwood encouraged each patient not to disclose the nature of their relationship.

However, the Tribunal noted that there had been no suggestion that the relationships influenced his dispensing.

The first relationship, with Patient One, lasted from December 2010 until at least March 2018 – during which time he dispensed tramadol, venlafexine and oxycodone for her.

She was an employee of his pharmacy and he was aware that she had experienced personal issues as the result of a marriage breakdown.

The second relationship was with a patient who had been receiving medicines including desvenlafaxine from the pharmacy from August 2016.

Roughly two weeks later, Patient Two’s mother passed away, leaving her in a vulnerable state.

“On or about 1 October 2016, Mr Hopwood, having obtained Patient Two’s number from the pharmacy records, contacted Patient Two through the pharmacy phone regarding the passing of her mother, and invited her to contact Mr Hopwood when she needed someone to speak to,” the Tribunal said.

“Mr Hopwood gave Patient Two his home and mobile numbers.

“Mr Hopwood initiated that Patient Two meet him for a coffee in Melbourne, and in doing so used his position as a pharmacist to pursue a non-therapeutic relationship with Patient Two.

“From on or about 8 October 2016 until on or about 29 December 2017, Mr Hopwood engaged in an inappropriate personal and/or intimate and/or sexual relationship with Patient Two.”

He continued to dispense medicines to her during the course of the relationship.

On 12 September 2019, the suspension was stayed by order of the Tribunal. Mr Hopwood resumed practising.

In April 2020, Mr Hopwood sold his pharmacy.

On 11 May 2020, Mr Hopwood gave an undertaking not to practise as a pharmacist. Pursuant to the suspension and subsequent undertaking, Mr Hopwood had been out of practice for 13 months.

At the videoconference hearing on Wednesday, 26 May 2021, the Tribunal found that Mr Hopwood failed to maintain professional boundaries in that he had engaged in inappropriate personal, intimate or sexual relationships with the two patients, which amounted to professional misconduct.

On 4 June 2021, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Hopwood be reprimanded and have conditions, requiring mentoring, imposed on his registration. The Tribunal noted that if not for the time Mr Hopwood already spent out of practice, a prospective suspension would have been ordered.

Mitigating factors included Mr Hopwood’s clear professional disciplinary record over the 45 years he had been registered, positive references from local medical practitioners and his recognition that his conduct breached professional boundaries.

“His starting position was one of not recognising or understanding the potential for any abuse of the power imbalance between him as a pharmacist, and the vulnerable patients with whom he pursued a dual personal and therapeutic relationship,” the Tribunal noted.

“We are satisfied that Mr Hopwood now has clear insight into the potential for such relationships to have an improperly exploitative effect on his patients.”

The tribunal outlined the profession’s codes of conduct and ethics required practitioners to: recognise that there is a practitioner/patient power imbalance; recognise and manage patient vulnerabilities; and manage actual and potential situations of conflict of interest.

“This case will undoubtedly act as a deterrent for other pharmacists from engaging in such personal/professional boundary violations,” the Tribunal said.

Previous The top ten
Next TGA does ‘terrible job’ on CMs, say critics

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.


  1. Mustafa Al Shakarji

    I just don’t understand how CONSENTED relationships between Mr Hopwood and some patients that has been going on FOR YEARS all of a sudden becomes “personal/professional boundary violations”. He did not abuse the system to illegally supply medications to those patients nor there is any mention of rape or violence against them. Almost everyone I know is on antidepressant which is unusual to classify them as “Vulnerable”; in this case a code of CELIBACY should be introduced for pharmacists. Am I missing something here?

    • KR

      i think if you look at the time frames, there is a period of time when he was seeing both. It is likely that one of the patients A or B found out, and they went to the Board.
      Patient One, lasted from December 2010 until at least March 2018
      patient 2- 8 October 2016 until on or about 29 December 2017

  2. laudie Sneddon reg,as SAHADE

    Since when was a customer or staff a patient!

    • Peter Allen

      “Just take your prescriptions elsewhere”

  3. Mark White

    I remember when I was an intern and started dating one of the assistants at my pharmacy of placement. I recall the boss scolded me: “bloody hell Whitey, there’s only one rule in this store and that’s don’t shaft the staff – and you broke it!”.

    Twenty years later, including twelve years of marriage, and maybe that boss looks at it differently now BUT – am I going to incur the wrath of the Pharmacy Board? I guess I’ll have to wait and see!

  4. Red Pill

    I know so many pharmacists that have met their husbands and wives by working in the same pharmacy together.

    Pharmacy Board needs to wake up and smell the coffee. This is nothing but abuse of power.

    Good on him for walking away from the profession. He won’t miss much.

  5. Peter Allen

    I recall the advice from a director of doctors indemnity: “ if you are having a relationship… don’t ever stop.”

Leave a reply