From Mr A. G. M. Madge, FRPharmS
SIR,—In his recent "Broad Spectrum "article "(PJ, November 11, p 715), Ian Caldwell gives much food for thought. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is unique in its self-discipline in the interests of the public and patients.
A few years ago, I carried out a survey of pharmacy in the Commonwealth which led me to realise the position which our Society holds. Our continental neighbours, and those in other countries, may have state control in small or large part. We have benefited from our independent self-control, which is no doubt due to our early entry into the field when state interference was in its infancy. Any attempt at change in the guise of improvement must be resisted. Let us safeguard our precious disciplinary control, not only to look after the interests of pharmacy and pharmacists but also those of the public as well.
Mr Caldwell's article also brings to mind the controversy on the future of pharmacy in New Zealand. Legislation to replace the Pharmacy Act there is under discussion and pharmacists are being invited to make their views known. It could mean that the registration body with compulsory membership could become separate from the advocacy body responsible for speaking on behalf of pharmacy. The retiring president of the NZ pharmaceutical society does not think this needs to happen. The society has, for over 120 years, successfully managed both roles, but the modern way seems different. It will be interesting to watch developments.
Mervyn Madge Plymouth, Devon