Like many colleagues, I was saddened to read that our esteemed erstwhile editor has hung up his editorial green eye shade and departed from The Journal after many years of outstanding editorship and much provocation from the likes of myself. It is all the more a pity if, as was intimated in the letters from Mr Khan and Mr Patel (PJ, August 12, p236), he has been eased out.
Mr Thomson. s letter in the same
issue (p237) gives the view that editorial control should be exercised over the factual accuracy of letters (and presumably other contributions as well). Mr Thomson should appreciate that responsibility for accuracy is in all cases that of an author alone and not of an editor, who accepts material in good faith. There seems to be an unstated implication in Mr Thomson. s letter that the editor should adopt some form of censorship. However, this would be most improper and totally unacceptable (certainly to me). Only once have I had a contribution to . Broad Spectrum. refused, and on that occasion there was a most courteous personal telephone call from Mr Simpson to explain that the ideas in my article (involving a total revision of all pharmaceutical publishing in the UK and much else) would require far too much space to refute. I therefore agreed to withdraw it, and wrote on another subject instead. In a free society, censorship of opinion is totally unacceptable. All views, even the way-out and the frankly wacky, need to be heard. After all, yesterday. s way-out may be today. s official policy (see my article in the PJ of July 31, 1999 [p157], which refers to the apparent official recognition, and putting into law, of some of the policies of the Monster Raving Loony Party). Therefore, everyone is entitled to have their opinion aired in the pages of what Mr Thomson correctly calls our . official organ of communication. .
Some of
the views expressed in The Journal have indeed been contentious: witness the long-running correspondence on the morality issues surrounding emergency contraception, and more recently the spate of letters on . breeding. .
Many
pharmacists will hold
views on those issues, and also on issues such as the presumed behind-the-scenes machinations at our Society. s headquarters, smoke-filled room deals on who will be the next president, and all the other, real or imaginary, goings-on within the Society. Not all, however, will be moved to write to The Journal, and presumably very few would be prepared to demonstrate, waving placards outside the . sombre Oxo cube on the Archbishop. s doorstep. , as our headquarters building was once described in an architectural journal. However, the right to peaceful demonstration is one which is highly prized in a free society, but is usually acted upon only by a small minority.
Over the years, I have twice been caught up in demonstrations, on both occasions inadvertently. The first was some years ago, outside the offices of the family health services authority where I was then the pharmaceutical adviser, when a decision was being made on whether to allow a pharmacy to open in a dispensing-doctor village. The demonstrators were genteel if noisy, wore tweeds, sensible shoes and placards, and harangued everyone going in or out of the building. The other occasion was last autumn, when I had planned a quiet day of research at the Cambridge university library, only to find that I had arrived on the day that the president of China was coming to Cambridge as part of his state visit and calling at the library to see its collection of ancient Chinese manuscripts (perhaps he was asking for them back?). About 200 smartly dressed Chinese students were there to welcome their president, along with gongs, symbols and a dancing Chinese dragon. There were also perhaps 100 or so demonstrators holding Amnesty International banners and Tibetan flags.
Contrary
to press reports, the two groups were not strictly segregated, there was a carnival atmosphere with much good humour and people were free to, and indeed did, move between the groups. However, there was so much noise that work was impossible so I went outside to see what was happening. The relatively small number of police were heavily reinforced shortly before the presidential party arrived, and what seemed like the entire Cambridgeshire police force faced the small crowd of demonstrators. This included a fair sprinkling of middle-aged and elderly academics as well as . professional. demonstrators who had followed the president around the country during his stay, their movements being co-ordinated over the ubiquitous internet. When the president arrived, there was a great deal of noise from both groups, but no problems and certainly no violent incidents. However, shortly before the presidential party left, police vans and mini-buses were moved in front of the demonstrators, presumably so that the Chinese president would not suffer the indignity of seeing the protest. Two black Marias managed to collide, senior police faces reddened and the demonstrators cheered gleefully.
The police tactic of obscuring the demonstration was, however, only partially successful, for as soon as the visiting party left the building to get into their cars, all the windows in Clare college annexe were opened and Tibetan flags fluttered from many of them. The loudest jeers were reserved for a group of UK dignitaries, including present and former government ministers, who left the library on foot and headed down the drive towards West Road, presumably to luncheon in one of the colleges.
This particular demonstration was both
peaceful and relatively dignified, unlike the recent incidents in a poor area of Portsmouth. There, mobs roamed the streets looking for paedophiles, setting fire to houses and generally terrorising people, including one unfortunate woman who happened to be a paediatrician. If we replace . 21st century. with . 17th century. and . paedophile. with . witch. , there are close similarities. Have we learned nothing in 400 years? However, these violent tactics seem to have paid off, with press reports that the Government will be reviewing the laws on sex offences.
Over
the years, there have been many calls for changes to be made in the way that our profession is run. One opportunity for instigating change is via the annual branch representatives. meeting, which now seems to be under some kind of threat. In any democracy (and this includes the Royal Pharmaceutical Society) the suppression of the public airing of views, and the means whereby ordinary members can influence events within that democracy, is a bad thing. Pharmacy, like other health care professions, is self-regulating, which means that control over the activities of members is exercised by other members. One possible threat to this, following on from the Harold Shipman case, is a recent proposal that health care professions be regulated by central government, rather than by their own membership. This is, I suspect, partly down to the . control-freak. mentality of the present (and likely next) government rather than from any real need to improve the regulation of the activities of health professionals. However, what better to start with than a small profession which is weakened by internal wrangling and a culture of secrecy, and in which the governing body and the general membership seem to be at odds? After all, we would not make much of a fuss, would we?
John Wilson is a pharmacist, based in Arnold,
Nottinghamshire, who is semi-retired and works part-time.