Talk:Qualified person (European Union)

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal

Do these two articles refer to the same thing? It appears each term arose due to different legislation, but does one supersede or build upon the other? It is not clear in either article how the two are related. Anxietycello (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The QP & QPPV are distinct roles with unrelated responsibilities. A QP is normally a specialist in GMP/Regulatory CMC. The QPPV is a drug safety specialist (usually a physician). The two are not related except in both being required by EU regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.178.212.99 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this page should be merged with the page entitled "Qualified Person for Pharmacovigilance" (found at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Qualified_Person_for_Pharmacovigilance) as it appears to be a duplicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.15.34.70 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should remain separate. The QP is a chemist/pharmacist/biologist responsible for ascertaining the quality of the product as manufactured. PV is a completely separate field and different person. As an aside, it is interesting to see the differences between GMP inspectors and PV inspectors: GMP inspectors dream up theoretical risks which PV deals with real risks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRB76D (talk • contribs) 10:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The roles are fully separate. They should not be linked. I am an experienced QP. The QPPV role is another world entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.146.125 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the clear consensus I've removed the formed merge tags, replacing them with the distinguish template. Also, given insightful comment by 185.15.34.70 I'll tag the new proposal which looks like a very good case.