The patient name on the prescription was a person close to the midwife, who cannot be identified.
The woman was not a practising midwife at the time.
The prescription was issued under the midwife’s maiden name, which differed from her name on the Midwifery Council register.
The prescription raised eyebrows among pharmacy staff, with one noting she had never seen a midwife prescribe zopiclone to a pregnant patient.
The drugs were dispensed, but the pharmacist then attempted to contact the patient on the prescription with no luck.
She then searched the online midwifery register but was unable to find the name of the midwife. The pharmacist contacted the midwife directly, who lied and said the prescription was for the named patient.
The pharmacist then contacted the council and raised concerns.
Thirteen days later, the Midwifery Council was contacted by another concerned pharmacist who said the same midwife had lodged a prescription for zopiclone earlier that day at her Hamilton pharmacy.
This prescription, again issued under the midwife’s maiden name, was for another person close to her. The pharmacist became concerned upon finding out the midwife’s registered address was the same address as the patient being prescribed the drugs.
The pharmacist suspected the midwife was attempting to source zopiclone for herself and declined to dispense the drugs.
The next day, another pharmacist at a separate Hamilton pharmacy contacted the Midwifery Council about a practitioner’s supply order, or PSO, written by the midwife under her maiden name. The order was for zopiclone.
Later that same day, March 19, 2021, the Midwifery Council met over the case and immediately suspended the midwife’s registration for 20 working days.
A subsequent investigation by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) found between September 2019 and August 2021, the midwife had prescribed 480 zopiclone tablets.
On at least eight other occasions, she had presented prescriptions for zopiclone at various Waikato pharmacies. She later admitted she wrote all of the prescriptions.
The midwife’s explanation for her offending is covered by suppression orders and cannot be detailed.
She was not represented in the tribunal by a lawyer and did not attend the hearing to give evidence or submit what her penalty should be.
Lawyer for the PCC Jo Hughson described the conduct in her submissions as deceitful and dishonest, amounting to “sophisticated deception and lying.”
“[Her] actions involved dishonesty, were inappropriate and irresponsible, and were a substantial departure from acceptable ethical and professional standards for a registered midwife.”
She said the conduct brought discredit to the profession.
After deliberating, tribunal chair Royden Hindle censured the midwife, cancelled her licence and ordered payment of costs of $8000 - 15 per cent of the tribunal’s total costs.
A decision on whether to grant permanent name suppression will be addressed at a later date.
