The
Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7129 p13-15January 06, 2001
The
Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7129 p13-15
January 06, 2001
From Dr J. D. Flack, MRPharmS
SIR,—I have just received the December issue of The Industrial Pharmacist.
I was shocked and dismayed to read in the Industrial Pharmacists Group chairman’s
notes and the editorial that “The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
voted at its December meeting to suspend publication of The Industrial Pharmacist
. . . as part of cost cutting measures aimed at balancing the Society’s budget
next year.” Having received a few days earlier the December 16, 2000, issue
of the PJ in which I read your reporting of the December Council meeting
(p882) which carries no
mention (unless I missed it in the fine print) of a vote or a discussion on
the matter, you may imagine my later disappointment from the editorial in the
IPG newsletter.
The Industrial Pharmacist serves as a very important information dissemination
tool and discussion forum for those engaged in the highly complex process of
discovering, developing, manufacturing and registering new pharmaceuticals.
For the Council to take the decision to suspend its publication without, it
seems, appropriate discussion with those responsible for the special interest
group is nothing short of disgraceful.
For those of us pharmacists who have spent their professional lives working
in the pharmaceutical industry proudly promoting the profession of pharmacy
and pharmaceutical science this is indeed a slap in the face.
I urge the Council to reconsider its decision and to involve the IPG chairman
and his committee in finding a way forward in ensuring that a small but significant
part of the membership is appropriately recognised and certainly not left feeling
disenfranchised.
John Flack
Melbourne, Australia
From Mr M. H. Anisfeld, MRPharmS
SIR,—I am saddened, and indeed shocked, by the news in the December,
2000, issue that the future of The Industrial Pharmacist is in serious
doubt for financial reasons.
The Industrial Pharmacist has emerged over the past three years from
a newsletter that I might read if I had the time, to a “must read” magazine
with important newsworthy content. In fact I read it cover to cover as soon
as I receive it. It is the only thing that the Society publishes that comes
close to meeting my needs as an industrial pharmacist.
The editorial in the December, 2000, issue of The Industrial Pharmacist
states that the future of the magazine is in jeopardy as “part of cost-cutting
measures”, and that the magazine is “not covering [its] publishing costs”. Why
does it have to cover its publishing costs? I thought that the difference between
a professional society and a commercial enterprise was that the profit margin
was not paramount, and that professional societies do things for their members
even when they do not make money. Isn’t part of my annual membership fee supposed
to cover educational content such as The Industrial Pharmacist? Or am
I being naive? And anyway, shouldn’t the approximately £1.5m annual profit from
The Pharmaceutical Journal be used, in part, to subsidise the Society’s
fringe/niche publications?
In fact I would go further: as an industrial pharmacist living outside the United
Kingdom, The Industrial Pharmacist is about the only thing of value to
me that being a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society gets me. In fact,
as an industrial pharmacist, if I had a choice, I’d swap receipt of The Journal for
The Industrial Pharmacist any time, for access to pertinent information
meeting my needs.
And if cost cutting is really the big issue, then stop printing hard copies
of the magazine, and start publishing e-mail or web versions. I am currently
president of a pharmaceutical professional society here in the Chicago area
(the mid-west chapter of the PDA — an international association for pharmaceutical
science and technology — formerly the Parenteral Drug Association). All our
communications to mid-west members, including meeting announcements, voting
for officers, membership dues and meeting fees (which are paid by credit card
over the web) and publications, are handled by e-mail. For over two years now
we have forgone paper copies of anything. We save money (in printing costs,
postage costs, and labour costs), work faster between our 667 members, and have
greatly enhanced our communications capability.
When, several years ago, the American Pharmaceutical Association, a body professing
to service the needs of all United States pharmacists but in reality primarily
serving community pharmacists (an analogous situation to the Society), abandoned
all pretence of addressing the needs of industrial pharmacists, the industrial
pharmacist membership, almost 100 per cent en masse, had within a year
resigned from the APhA and established their own organisation, the American
Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Perhaps the Society might want to reconsider
the impact of its ultra-shabby treatment of industrial pharmacy members; or
perhaps the prospect of losing about 1,500 members is not of consequence to
the Society?
I would ask the Society’s Council to seriously reconsider the wisdom of this
cost cutting action. OK, the Society saving money by not sending individual
Christmas cards I can understand, but depriving its industrial members of the
only really relevant publication meeting their needs really begs the question
of whether the Society wants to offer us industrial pharmacists anything, and
whether we are getting any value for our membership fees.
M. Anisfeld
Globepharm Consulting
Deerfield, Illinois,
United States
From Dr D. N. John, MRPharmS
SIR,—I wish to respond briefly to Mr Coventry’s letter (PJ, December
16, 2000, p894). I am not
sure from where the figure of “40 per cent of academics teaching in our schools
of pharmacy are registered pharmacists” has come from but I would wish to inform
colleagues of the following factors.
Some staff do very little teaching. The majority of their time is involved with
other academic activities such as research and administration. Some of them
would be pharmacists and some non-pharmacists.
In some universities pharmacy is not the only scheme taught by a department.
Chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences and pharmacology may be included.
I know some non-pharmacists who are excellent lecturers in their own particular
field and there would be many students who would support this view. Further,
being a pharmacist does not mean necessarily that one will be a good lecturer.
Many schools of pharmacy use teacher-practitioners who play a vital role in
course delivery; many of these would not appear on the official departmental
list of staff.
Remuneration in academia, particularly for young pharmacists, does not compare
well with that in other sectors of the profession. Encouraging pharmacists to
register for a PhD on an annual stipend of much less than £10,000 for each of
three years is not easy when they can earn upwards of £30,000 per annum elsewhere.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society reaccredits pharmacy degrees at schools of
pharmacy in Britain every five years ensuring high standards are maintained.
As far as Mr Coventry’s fourth point is concerned, the number of pharmacists
qualifying has very little to do with the proportion of non-pharmacist staff
at a school of pharmacy.
In summary, we do need well-qualified, motivated pharmacists who are competent
researchers and teachers at our schools of pharmacy. But in my view not all
of them need be pharmacists.
Dai John
Welsh School of Pharmacy,
Cardiff University
From Dr R. Woodford, MRPharmS
SIR,—The thought-provoking letter from Mark Stapleton (PJ, November
25, p791) on the pharmacy–dermatology
relationship refers to his valuable advice to the Associate Parliamentary Group
on Skin. I was recently invited to submit oral and written evidence to that
group, whose “Report on the inquiry into skin diseases in elderly people” was
launched in the press on November 27. Several references are made in that report
to the role of the pharmacist, and it may be useful to quote three of them.
6.17
Elderly people frequently ask advice from local pharmacists about treatments
for skin problems and if it warrants a visit to the GP. In line with the NHS
plan, pharmacists could have a big role in prescribing skin treatment. Pharmacists
are well placed to promote skin treatments for older people such as they do
with acne treatments for the young.
7.6
Pharmacists have an important role to play in providing information on skin
care and the avoidance of skin irritants. Pharmacists are a provider for patients
and an educator for primary care teams. They are a significant source of advice
in the community. This outlet should be exploited.
8.8
Prescribing for the elderly could be devolved down to the most suitably trained
professional. The present pathway between primary and secondary care could be
made much smoother by an extension of the system allowing nurses to prescribe
for certain conditions, and by initiating prescribing facilities for community
pharmacists.
Interestingly, in Section 3.0, “The facts about skin disease in the elderly”,
the only “hard data” quoted are the results of my survey of patients seeking
advice in a Hampshire community pharmacy and presented to the Primary Care Dermatology
Society.
Roger Woodford
Farlington, Hampshire
From Mr A. Cox, MRPharmS
SIR,—It has been announced that the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society has approved proposals to alter the Byelaws concerning funds and properties
of the Society (PJ, November 4, 2000, p.702). This amendment will allow
the Society to use up to £2m for the laudable aim of developing the commercial
activities of the Society. It is pleasing to see any activity which may help
the Society grapple with its financial problems.
However, the year 2000 saw the Society enter a contract to purchase property
for the sum of £600,000 without the Council being asked to confirm and agree
that contracts should be exchanged. This led to the Secretary and Registrar
of the Society apologising to the Council for this incident (PJ, April
15, 2000, p578-583).
More recently a Privy Council appointee to the Council described the Society's
finances as "verging on quite serious financial disarray" (PJ, August
12, 2000, p227).
Therefore, before these amendments to the Byelaws are enacted, it is imperative
that the Society’s membership and the Lords of the Privy Council are given assurances
that robust and auditable mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that the
Council is fully informed and consulted.
Any financial decisions of this magnitude must be made by democratically accountable
members of the Council, and should not be merely rubber-stamped by the Council
following a commitment to purchase made by any other group at the Society.
Anthony Cox
Sutton Coldfield,
West Midlands
From Mr A. Tanna, FRPharmS
SIR,—The retirement four months ago of the editor of The Pharmaceutical
Journal has led to much debate about whether or not his replacement should
be a pharmacist. How odd that even Council members were not aware of the advertisement
(PJ, October 21, 2000, pA37), stating that the successful candidate for
this challenging position would “ideally” be a pharmacist.
Some may say that they would not like to see a non-pharmacist who was the “best”
candidate passed over in favour of an “inferior” candidate just because the
latter was a pharmacist. Those who think that way are living in ivory towers.
If the Society were to insist on appointing a non-pharmacist editor, then it
would be doing a great disservice to the profession, since a non-pharmacist
candidate would not have an in-depth knowledge of pharmacy nor be able to give
The Journal a unity of purpose and guide and support the staff. It is
better to teach pharmacists journalism than to teach journalists pharmacy.
The Council election 2001 is not far away. Of the seven Council members due
to retire, Professor Clare Mackie has already resigned, and will therefore not
seek re-election, and I understand that one long-serving member may not seek
re-election this time. That leaves five retiring Council members who are eligible
to stand for re-election. I would like to ask those who intend to seek re-election
for an honest and open debate in the letters columns on how they would feel
about the appointment of a non-pharmacist candidate as editor of The Journal.
I have no hidden personal agenda and no burning ambition driving my actions
and thought, other than to further the interest of the profession. I am therefore
stating that I would stand as a candidate in the forthcoming Council election
and my views are clear on the appointment of the editor of the PJ — that
the Council must not appoint anyone other than a pharmacist.
Ashwin Tanna
London SE22
From Mr N. Bubb, MRPharmS
SIR,—Once again it seems we are being railroaded. Or are we? Before we
have as a profession decided the best way forward with the supply of emergency
hormonal contraception, we are seemingly being pressurised by events like the
date of change of legislation, date of availability of suitably labelled packs
and inevitably media attention.
What an opportunity! We have been asking for years to extend our role. A strong
profession, backed by the unique Royal Pharmaceutical Society, a mix of professional
body and professional regulator, should take the lead now!
Action plan:
By delivering a simple consistent message to all, especially the media, we will
not be railroaded and we will enhance the standing of our profession. Let us
deliver a consistent well-considered professional solution in a timely way —
after all that is our job and purpose, and this is what we expect to be able
to do and the public expects us as a profession to do.
Let us not panic just because of other people’s agendas, but plan and deliver
because this is our job and that of our professional body to do so. It is quite
rightly no defence for an individual pharmacist to succumb to pressure. Surely
the same is true collectively for EHC with regard to consumer and media pressure.
Let us use the media interest in a positive way because it is not necessary
to panic but it is necessary to respond in a positive and controlled way.
EHC offers a unique opportunity, perhaps the first of many. This could really
be the start of Pharmacy in a New Age. Come on, Royal Pharmaceutical Society:
we need you to be strong and rise to the challenge so we all get the best way
for all — our way!
Nick Bubb
Whitehill,
Bordon,
Hampshire
From Mr C. Morris, MRPharmS
SIR,—I believe I am well catalogued in my views on over-the-counter emergency
hormonal contraception. It seems the debate is now over, with EHC becoming over-the-counter
as from January 1 (PJ, December 16, 2000, p872).
I do hope that the price will be widely publicised. I am sure unprotected sex
rates will not go up. We have been told they will not and so, why should they?
But if EHC should be used as a new freely available contraceptive, then a £20
fee may come as a serious eye-opener and may make a bad hangover even worse.
I wonder how our President feels on “our co-ordinated approach to sexual health”
now that EHC will be more freely available and a new report says that sexually
transmitted infections are at an all time high.
Chris Morris
Newquay,
Cornwall
From Miss S. D. Patel, MRPharmS
SIR,—I have been qualified for just over three years and consider my
pharmacist status to be that of a professional. After all, my entire degree
was based upon the study and usage of drugs. I have concerns over the emergency
supply of contraception, such as time constraints and ensuring the correct age
of the patient, but I have no concerns over my fundamental ability to make the
decision itself. In fact I believe that I am as competent as any nurse, etc.
I am, however, baffled that I will be allowed to sell something as “potent”
as hormonal contraception, and yet I am not trusted, or am not thought competent,
to sell items such as Fucithalmic, Timodine or Daktacort. The range of items
that I am able to recommend, compared to colleagues abroad (eg, in Ireland),
is so limited that it is frustrating and somewhat insulting to have to refer
people to their doctor when I should have been able to sell them the product
instead.
In reality, what does my MRPharmS really mean when the most effective thing
I can sell for, eg, conjunctivitis is propamidine eye ointment or drops, bearing
in mind what the British National Formulary states about the efficacy of that
drug? The public rightly expects more from us.
Sittal D.Patel
Upper Norwood,
London SE19
From Mr P. E. Carter, MRPharmS
SIR,—The whole of continuing education requires a major overhaul. There
are two main problems: the course contents are mostly irrelevant to community
pharmacy, and workshops are the “in craze” at the moment and should be abolished.
Workshops involve an hour or so of small group discussion, followed by collective
group discussion. We community pharmacists do not have the time to waste. All
we want is the conclusion, so that we can get home for Sunday lunch and see
our families, whom we have not seen all week.
Apart from working in my pharmacy for 50 hours a week, there is also much paperwork
to be done when running a business and locums are increasingly difficult to
find. There are too many pen-pushing qualified pharmacists involved in providing
continuing education, many with very little or no experience in community pharmacy.
It should be compulsory for these pharmacists to spend at least one day a week
working as a locum in a community pharmacy. I make this point more as a demand
rather than a suggestion.
Peter Carter
Newcastle upon Tyne