Other topics covered include: President seeks members' support for corporate governance plans; Balance sheet strong despite 1999 deficit; Presentation of fellowship certificates; and AGM rejects "witch-hunt" motion on flat purchase
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's annual general meeting adopted Parts 1 and 2 of the revised Code of Ethics and the new Standard 19 relating to the provision of services via the internet (PJ, April 29, p653).
|
William Darling: a need for a public declaration of intent |
For that particular reason, the Council had not been prepared to bring to the AGM a document, the full implications of which had not been fully debated. That was why it was asking for a further 12 months to do additional work particularly in the light of counsel's opinion in respect of Part 3 (service specifications) and the areas of personal responsibility of the pharmacist. These considerations would also take into account the implications of certain pieces of legislation, data protection, electronic commerce, and, in particular, the Competition Act, to name just three issues.
But why not bring one complete document to the 2001 AGM? The answer was very simple: because of the developing attitude of the Government, other health care professionals and the patient to poor clinical pharmaceutical performance and because of the need to demonstrate to the world at large that pharmacists in their specific field of practice kept up to date.
There was therefore a need for the Council, supported by the AGM, to make a public declaration of intent of the key responsibilities of a pharmacist and the requirement of that pharmacist to ensure the up-to-date knowledge and continuing professional competence of all practitioners.
With that backcloth in mind, the Council had looked carefully at the draft code and had decided that Part 2A (personal responsibilities) and Part 3 (service specifications) required more time to ensure proper consideration of members' views and compliance with relevant legislation. Minor changes had been made to Part 1 (pharmacists' ethics) to reflect the responses and comments received. In particular, the words, "the role and accountability of a pharmacist" had been changed to "the key responsibilities of a pharmacist". Changes had also been made to Parts 2B (professional competence) and 2C (confidentiality) as a result of comments received. What the AGM had before it, Mr Darling suggested, was an improvement on the original document, demonstrating the value of consultation.
It was his privilege, Mr Darling said, to propose the adoption of Part 1 of the revised Code of Ethics as a replacement to the preface of the existing code, and Part 2, Standards of Professional Performance, as a replacement to Principles 4 and 5, and Standard 7 of the existing code. The remaining parts of the consultation document, appropriately changed, would be brought to the 2001 AGM.
Mr ANDREW HERSOM (Hull) said that he was unable to support the motion because the Society's members had not seen the proposal until April 29. He did not believe that most people had had sufficient time to consider the proposal properly. While he supported the revision of the code, this was not the way to go about it and members and branches should have been consulted first. Shortness of time perhaps explained it, but did not excuse it, he suggested.
Mr STAN WHEATLEY (Dorset) suggested that the meeting was being presented with something of a dog's dinner. The original document had led members to believe that the intention was to produce a clear and concise statement of professional ethics, but the AGM was being asked to approve only Part 1 and a cut-down version of Part 2 of the original proposals.
The introduction to the original document had asked whether the structure and contents were right. But many members would remain unconvinced that the philosophical approach was the correct one. By virtue of their training, pharmacists had an exact perspective of their profession, and the less than precise requirements of the new code proposals gave rise to some uneasiness. Difficulties could arise from the potential variation of interpretation.
One specific concern, said Mr Wheatley, was that in several places the proposals referred to the expectation of others, for example, the public and the National Health Service. Surely such expectations should be assumed and taken for granted? The thrust of the code should be directed towards defining the various obligations on pharmacists to recognise and fulfil their professional responsibilities.
Perhaps more importantly, the proposals introduced the concept of a defined length of time that had to be undertaken in terms of continuing professional development. This pre-empted any conclusions that might be made as a result of the consultations being undertaken by the Society's Health Act working party
Mr Wheatley suggested that the proposals should be referred back for further consideration. He was sure that the profession could live with the existing code for one more year.
The PRESIDENT said that there was an extreme urgency for the profession to be seen to be getting its house into the best possible order, particularly in the light of what had gone on with court cases and other health professionals. The Council was anxious to demonstrate that pharmacy was moving forward. Rather than wait and be found wanting, the Council wished to demonstrate that it was moving towards a revised code.
Mr DARLING said that, in view of the rapidly changing legal situation, his first reaction had been to bring nothing to the 2000 AGM but to wait a year. But, because of the Government's views on professional self governance and on health professionals keeping up to date, it was necessary for the Society to have a public declaration of intent, despite any anxiety about having two bites at the cherry.
So far as continuing professional development was concerned, the proposal before the meeting was very much a holding situation to await the outcome of the consultation by the Health Act working party.
The proposal was not as neat and tidy as he or the Council would have liked, but it was important to get it right. That was why the Council was asking for a further 12 months and he was sure the meeting would want the Society to make the public declaration of intent of the role and responsibility of the pharmacist.
The PRESIDENT then put the proposal to the meeting. It was carried on a show of hands.
Presenting Standard 19 (the provision of pharmacy services via the internet) to the meeting for its approval, Mr DARLING said that for some time the Council had been aware of the developments within the profession of e-commerce and the scenario surrounding the internet. The standard was an interim one. It would be reviewed during the next 12 months in the light of developing circumstances, and the revised standard will come as part of the other standards to the 2001 AGM.
What the Council was saying within the standard was that the public was entitled to expect the same standard of pharmaceutical care wherever or however that care was provided. It reminded pharmacists of the ethical and legal standards that had to be complied with if such a process was going to be adopted. In short, it highlighted those issues to be considered by pharmacists providing an on-line service.
The meeting then agreed, without debate, to adopt Standard 19.