From Mr A. G. M. Madge, FRPharmS
SIR,-The articles on remuneration and pharmaceutical care by Graham Calder in your March 4 issue (p375 and p377) give much food for thought. The loyalty of patients to the pharmacist rather than the pharmacy experienced in Minneapolis is repeated daily in the UK. I quote: "Pharmaceutical care which is acceptable to patients, the National Health Service and the pharmacist and is remunerated will leave a positive mark on our profession in years to come." Very apt indeed. Remuneration in this material world is a sign of recognition of value to the community. Obviously, the Society is precluded by the Jenkins case from getting involved in wages and conditions, etc, however, it is the proponent of and protector of all the various sections of the profession. What concerns one sector must concern all and the Society indubitably must indirectly notice remuneration. To go back a few years, the PJ, on the instruction of the Council, I believe, refused to accept advertisements for pharmacists offering a salary of less than £200 per annum. In its dealings with the various offices of state, the Society must have much influence, none more so than in the recognition of the profession and remuneration.
Mervyn Madge
Plymouth, Devon