From Mr C. K. Nathwani, MRPharmS
SIR,—I write in response to Mr Simner's letter (PJ, November 25, p787) in which he questions the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's stance in the fight for resale price maintenance. Mr Simner's views on RPM and contract limitation are well documented. However, his statement that well over half the membership are employees like him and therefore unaffected by the outcome of the RPM case is, I believe, not true. I think the whole profession will be affected by the outcome of the case. For many, it represents the last chance of maintaining a viable community pharmacy network, but for many others, including employee pharmacists, RPM on medicines sends a message to the consumer that medicines are not ordinary items of commerce. I have for many years secretly admired the concept of community pharmacy as portrayed by Boots and recently copied by Superdrug. But in its latest venture, ie, Woolworths General Store, I feel that Mr Simner's parent company has shown that commercial exploitation of pharmacy and people's health care needs is the name of the game, and using the disguise of "Pharmacy in the future "gives it credibility. In fact, I have spoken to many customers and staff of Woolworths and community leaders about the fact that Woolworths, which has been a national shop for generations of people (especially young people, owing to its merchandise, eg, sweets, toys, compact discs and children's clothing), will now exploit its market position to display to these young customers an off-licence, a tobacco kiosk and a pharmacy‚ and if RPM were to be removed it could "pile medicines high and sell them cheap”. Mr Simner misses the point of RPM. The Society's Council's decision to support RPM is right, and I would not hesitate to contribute an extra amount with my retention fee next year for these needs.
C. K. Nathwani Southall, Middlesex