Pharmacists may become licensed in all states by simply transferring their license from another state. This process of license transfer, known as either “reciprocity” or “endorsement” in most states, is designed to remove the burdensome requirement of taking the same board of pharmacy examination (NAPLEX) over again when one moves from one state to another. However, the license transfer methods are not intended as a means to permit pharmacists who are subject to disciplinary action in one state to escape their discipline in that state simply by moving to another state. If that were permitted, discipline would mean little. A pharmacist could break numerous laws in one state, thumb his or her nose at the law, and skip to another state. To stop this, states restrict license transfer to those who have no problems practicing in the state from which they wish to move. In this case, the pharmacist claimed that he had a right to be licensed in Oregon on the basis of his license in Texas. As you read this case, ask yourself whether the pharmacist has been fully truthful with the Oregon Board of Pharmacy. 

What might the implications be of a pharmacist who is less than truthful in an application for a pharmacy license? 

Is practicing pharmacy a right or a privilege? 

Is there a difference between a person who already has a pharmacy license and one who is making application for a license? 

Does a current licensee have a greater claim to noninterference by government action than does a prospective licensee? 

In what ways may the public health be protected from license transfer by a pharmacy applicant who would be a bad risk for pharmacy practice in a state?