From Mr R. C. Mills, MRPharmS
SIR,-Mr Clarke (PJ, June 10, p882) asks that the Council should "get a broad view" on the topic of emergency hormonal contraception because he does not agree with the motion passed by a considerable majority (about four to one) at the branch representatives meeting (PJ, May 20, p766). Mr Brookes in his letter on regional representation on the Council (PJ, June 10, p879) also refuses to accept the democratic vote, also by a large majority, of the BRM (PJ, May 27, p800) and asks that his letter should be taken by the Council "as a contribution to the debate on the Council's constitution".
Like Mr Brookes and Mr Clarke, I have on many occasions supported, and in some cases proposed, on behalf of my branch, motions which have been rejected by the BRM, but I would not feel that letters to The Pharmaceutical Journal should then have more weight than the democratic will of the BRM. This is the one meeting of the Society where motions on topics are proposed, published in advance, and debated by a large group of pharmacists representing the 160 branches, many of which will have discussed the topics locally before the meeting. This surely is the "broad view" and the most valid "contribution to the debate".
Letters to The Pharmaceutical Journal tend to be written by zealots to their cause. I should know, as I am one. My cause is the validity of the BRM as the best assessment of the feelings of the profession.
Roger Mills
Ascot, Berkshire