From Mr M. E. Q. James, FRPharmS
SIR,-In 38 years of membership of our Society I have always been proud of that membership. I have, however, on occasion, been ashamed of the attitudes of some of my fellow members. That shame has returned on reading the letters of Miss Taylor (PJ, May 27, p810, and July 1, p14) and Mr Morris (PJ, June 10, p883, and July 1, p14). The latter, I have to say, I find particularly offensive when he states that he apologises to those who might feel offended by his first letter. Well, I for one feel offended, and do not feel disposed to accept his apology. He should reflect, before writing further, on the fact that apology with reservation is a new affront.
I suggest that, if he were to stop hanging around the saloon bars of Newquay, peering across into the cheapo side and tut-tutting about what he believes he sees, and listen to the real concerns of real people, he might realise that there are plenty of our neighbours suffering real hardship and real poverty. And not only in the areas where the traditional industries were destroyed during the 1980s, but also in the soi-disant prosperous South East. It is often alleged that social services will do all that is necessary, and that "those people" are happy to rely on it. Well, if there are those that are happy about it, I have not come across them. I have met people who are resigned to it, those who get all that we are prepared to allow them, but very few who are happy about it. And, if there are, whose fault is it? Theirs, or ours? If we tell a man that he and his trade are now useless, that at the age of 40 or so there is nothing that we as a society require of him, what message do we expect him to pass on to his sons? What message do we expect those sons to hear? And if we tell those sons (and daughters) that their communities are finished, and they should get out, leave their parents, go somewhere else and find something else, what are we saying about family loyalty and values?
He comments that mothers with sick children are reluctant to take time off work to take their children to the doctor. Has he considered that those mothers, if they ask for time off for this purpose, may well lose their jobs? Job security and workers' rights at the lower end of the British market are among the worst in Europe. Incidentally, it appears that he is a locum. Would he care to consider what would happen if he asked for a lunch-break from some pharmaceutical employers?
Miss Taylor is obviously completely unaware both of English history, and of current demographic trends. Ever since the industrial revolution, Britain, and particularly industrial England, has been a country where the rule of law only prevailed spasmodically and rarely effectively. And even a cursory study of demographics will show her that there will not be enough young people in a few years' time to support those of us who have earned our retirement. There may well not be enough to staff the caring professions, let alone pay the taxes necessary to pay them. She and I, I suspect, were brought up to believe that we would be supported from the cradle to the grave. That was what we and, more to the point, our parents were promised. Unfortunately, though, her solution is inadequate. It will require a substantial increase in taxation on someone to fund what we need, but we as a society (and here I have some agreement with her) appear to believe that one can have both the penny and the bun.
However, as a parent and grandparent I have to ask the question: Whose fault is that? Mr Grabecki (PJ, June 24, p952), you are not alone.
Miall E. James
Benfleet, Essex