From Mr B. G. Simner, MRPharmS
SIR,—I wish to put on record my disappointment at the response to our document "The way forward", expressed in The Journal by both yourself and the professional bodies (PJ, September 11, pp369-71). Once again, the profession has wasted an opportunity to have a constructive debate about its role in the new National Health Service.
I supported many of the sentiments expressed in the open letter to the Minister (PJ, September 4, p361), particularly the frustration at a lack of Government action. However, the profession must put forward positive ideas if it wants the Government and others to take it seriously. I cannot see how drawing parallels with the 1920s achieves this. In fact it reinforces the impression, held by many, that pharmacy is a backward looking, undynamic profession. Britain has altered radically since the era of the Great War; we now have different shopping habits, working mothers and a National Health Service! Pharmacy has to welcome and adapt to these changes, not fear them.
The response elicited by the Superdrug document illustrates the apathy and negativity that characterises much of the profession. Not one of our critics offered an alternative vision about how pharmacy can improve its position. The report has been dismissed as a company's "special pleading" and we do not deny that some of our proposals would be in our commercial interest — Superdrug is, like all other pharmacies, a business after all.
The fact that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society did not feel fit to attribute its criticism to a named spokesperson seems indicative of the secrecy with which it conducts its affairs.
Similarly, I was incredulous to read that the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee had dismissed our proposals as being "about profit not patients". After all, the PSNC itself is supposed to be a negotiating body, concerned with furthering the commercial interest of contractors. I am surprised that it has not come across the issue of contract reform itself, given its involvement in a large number of judicial reviews. Perhaps, this response gives us some insight into its lamentable lack of progress to date.
Week after week, on these very pages, pharmacists bemoan the lack of adequate remuneration and discuss the crisis of confidence within the profession. Perhaps it is time we accepted some responsibility for our own future. We are unlikely to receive additional money from the Government and should consider how our current remuneration can be more equitably and efficiently redistributed. Unless we put forward positive suggestions, we cannot expect the Government to react positively towards us as a profession.
I sincerely believe that the future for pharmacy will be much brighter if it is self-determined rather than imposed. However, every time the professional bodies dismiss a paper, such as the one published by Superdrug, without discussing or debating it first, they are throwing away an opportunity. Worse still, they are in danger of entrenching the image of pharmacy as a divided profession dominated by narrow interest groups.
In the future, it is likely that the concept of collaborative care will be totally accepted. Pharmacy needs to be in a position where it is able to adapt to this change. The profession needs to examine its motives and establish whether it is narrow self-interest that is preventing it from embracing a modern and competitive market, and thereby turning its back on future opportunities.
Barry Simner
Head of Pharmacy, Superdrug Stores Plc