|
Root of confidence |
Root of confidenceThere used to be an assumption that people who performed special functions in society, and incidentally got paid for their services, were expected to be both competent and conscientious in the actions they performed. It is often impossible today to track down the individual who is responsible for dealing with a complaint, for restoring your access to an essential service such as water, electricity or telephone, for repairing your road, or arranging your admission to hospital within a reasonable time when you need medical or surgical attention. It is next to impossible to persuade your elected representative in local or regional government to take up your case when you are aggrieved. Needs get lost in a maze of jettisoned responsibility and computerised communications. In fact this is no new problem, although it may have become more acute with the relentless spread of bureaucracy. In 1914, in his book 'Chance', Joseph Conrad wrote that "no ship navigated and sailed in the happy-go-lucky manner people conduct their business on shore would ever arrive in port". His point was that, although in the safety of dry land it is possible to shelve responsibility and pretend to a competence which you do not possess, in a situation of critical isolation where your life depends on your competence, you really have to know what you are about. And not only know, but act accordingly. We are sometimes sorely tempted to take the hopeless advice of Psalm 146: "Put not your trust in princes nor in any child of man; for there is no help in them." This is a counsel of despair. Pharmacists, like other providers of special services to the public, are coming under criticism from consumer groups for what are alleged to be their shortcomings. Most criticisms are of the discretion exercised by a pharmacist in situations where he or she is in the position of being able to assess whether or not a customer should be provided with a certain medicine, taking into account the hazards and the advantages. Being open to such criticism depends upon two aspects of the professional approach which are not based upon legal considerations, factors which must always exercise a truly professional mind. The first is scientific and technical competence, the second social competence, the ability to meet a patient face to face and offer any appropriate advice, and if necessary to refuse to comply with a request that is judged flawed. These two aspects form the backbone of any truly professional approach to a social function that is justified by specialised knowledge. We are well aware of the need to keep our scientific knowledge up to date, and undergo postgraduate education to ensure that this happens. So far we have been less willing to undergo training in the person-to-person commerce of a professional career, in which we have, without indulging in personal criticism or demonstrating lack of sympathy, to make soundly based decisions that are disciplined as well as kindly. The computer mentality makes it more difficult to deal with people as individuals while preserving the milk of human kindness and the desirable degree of warmth. We are, after all, health carers, not medication robots.
|