The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 265 No 7110 p264
August 19, 2000 Letters

The Society

Take a step back

From Professor G. B. A. Veitch, FRPharmS

SIR,-I was dismayed to read the columns of The Journal (PJ, July 22, p118), the response in the letters column (PJ, July 29, p160) then the news column (PJ, August 5, p185). We seem destined to have members ready to undermine the profession in public, with little regard for the damage they do. I am concerned about a number of issues. First, if I have interpreted the chronology of events correctly, there was an alleged inappropriate handling of members' questions at the annual general meeting in May this year, followed by a subsequent correspondence between Mr Dajani and the President, a press release from Mr Dajani on July 16 claiming that there is "a campaign to hide the truth", and a statement from the Society on July 18 which reflected policy and protocol as currently agreed. This sequence of events, while purporting to cover a number of issues, appears to focus mainly on the handling of pay rises for senior staff, which, under prevailing policy are published in the Society's annual accounts. The press release and Society statement then triggered Mr Walker to respond in glowing terms of support for the stance adopted by Mr Dajani.
My response to these events is not necessarily about backing up the Council, the Society and the President, although it may include all three. Essentially, it is more concerned with what might be perceived as a hidden agenda. Transparency is an extremely important topic and it is for the Council, the Society and the President to act in unison about governing the level to which detailed information is made available (a) to Council members, (b) to the profession and (c) to the public. These groups do not always require release of the same exquisite levels of detail. Some judgments are simple and not controversial. Many are based on intricate detail and require a balanced judgment that carries majority support. So, what are my concerns about the present dilemma?

• (i) That the Council and the Society do not appear to be able to satisfy some members about the depth of information they require. (Who are these members? How many? How big is the problem? Is it anecdotal only? Is the tail attempting to wag the dog?)
• (ii) That succour is given, perhaps unwittingly, to those who exploit opportunities to be critical of the profession in the public domain in matters which should be internal
• (iii) That further threats are explicit in the latest release (ie, to quote, "I will be forced to follow other recourse of action and further publicity", unquote)
• (iv) That there are so many more vital issues challenging the profession that require our undivided energies (eg, clinical governance, technological advances, commercial power, delivery of effective pharmaceutical care, a new contract, all the issues arising from the Health Act, three of which are currently out for consultation, to name but a few)

I would urge all the parties, de profundis, to:

• Take a step back
• Cool off
• Reconsider their respective positions and responsibilities
• Debate the issues ab initio without historical baggage or prejudice
• Come to conclusions in Council which are decisive and supported by the majority if not nem con
• Be as transparent as possible about each issue by exercising judgments through the Council, its committees, and working groups which are robust, defensible and progressive
• Be supportive of majority decisions, even if honest doubts remain (Is not this what democracy is about?)
• Pursue divisions of opinion through appropriate channels that do not wash dirty linen in public (ie, use the due democratic processes to make desired changes)
• Enter into an entente cordiale where the entente is a real understanding and the cordiale is genuinely friendly
• Lead the profession (After all is this not what all the parties are about - democratically elected to give professional leadership?)

Bryan Veitch
Lichfield, Staffordshire