From Miss B.E. Pawulska, MRPharms
SIR,—I was horrified to read the letter from Ms Chadwick and the reply from Mr Lutener in The Journal of October 30 (p709). More than showing a lack of support, it feels like the rug has been pulled from under the feet of practising pharmacists by the very body that should be helping us.
The action of the professional standards directorate was at best misguided and naive, and at worst counterproductive and destructive towards the profession. Of course any negative aspect of the inspector's comments to the Jimmy Young programme would be stressed; such is the nature of the media.
In my opinion, the solicitor on the programme had given sensible and level-headed advice and, even if the inspector had felt it was not strictly correct to the letter of the law, would it not have been in the best interest of the profession to have left well alone? Do the Society's inspectors not have anything better to do than encourage the harassment of pharmacists?
Like Ms Chadwick, I fully accept the need to maintain standards and expose incompetence but this action has achieved nothing positive. Would the British Medical Association have acted in a similar manner in such circumstances?
Barbara E. Pawulska
Emsworth, Hampshire