The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7176 p778-781
1 December 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Remuneration
  The elderly
  Mistletoe
  Paracetamol
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Society (7 letters)

Maintaining the museum will be beneficial

From Dr D. G. Burt, FRPharmS

The Pharmaceutical Society, in 1842, laid three cornerstones for its educational policy, namely, the school, the library and the museum. Over the years their immediate functions have been superseded but their importance has not been diminished. Moreover, their duties may have changed but so have the reasons for their retention.

Recent letters in The Journal would suggest that the only people likely to be affected by the museum's closure are a small number of "codgers" more interested in the past than today's "real world". A description that, so easily, could have been applied to at least one of our illustrious founder members, namely, Jacob Bell. From a brief review of the PJ, volume 1, 1841–42, it can be shown that Bell used other countries' histories of pharmacy to persuade British chemists and druggists to join the Society. George W. Smith described how the rules of many institutions had been studied before the Society's first constitution was drafted. One basic aim was to avoid the abuses in other corporate bodies. A main intention had been to introduce the tenet of representation.

The Society was formed for the purpose of education, examination, registration and representation. Its goal was to equip members to become "more efficient servants of the public". These sentiments are relevant for current pharmacists, despite the lapse of 160 years. Man's nature has not changed to such an extent that we cannot learn from the attainments, or mistakes, of the past.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is a product of its own history. Its birth can be attributed to a number of factors. The Medical Reform Bill of 5 February 1841 expedited the actions that ended with the decision, on 15 April 1841, to form the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. But this hides an intricate story spread over several hundred years.

The medical profession's origins are lost in antiquity although, in England, its formal structure can be considered to have begun in 1511 with an Act for Appointing Physicians and Surgeons. Later Royal Charters and legal actions created clear-cut spheres of practice. In the first half of the 19th century, the calling's practitioners could strive for membership of three corporate bodies, namely, the Royal College of Physicians of London (1511); Royal College of Surgeons of England (1540) and the Society of Apothecaries (1617). Pharmacy was still deemed an integral part of the occupation but, until 1841, was devoid of its own institution. Each body, for its survival has had to frame its own response to upheavals in the population. Each has made major contributions to the growth of knowledge and ideas, which are claimed to be in the best interest of the fellows, members and general public.

The Society made huge efforts to achieve its present status. However, this can be eroded by a complacent membership. To derive the maximum benefit from earlier struggles the full story needs to be known. History is a factual subject: it should not be treated as something we think may have happened. In the long term, the cost of maintaining highly skilled staff in core elements, such as the museum, will prove to be more beneficial to the membership, simply to glean the truth of our past. Equally, there is the need to preserve current material for use by future members.

David G. Burt
Cardiff

Why museum decision must be reversed

From Professor E. J. Shellard, FRPharmS

I want to add my protest against the decision of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council to reduce the financial support to the museum and end public access to it (PJ, 20 October, p579).

What is going to happen to all the valuable and priceless exhibits in the museum if it ceases to exist? A museum which is not living is bound to fade away.

I can remember the disposal of the historic materia medica museum. It was the largest and most complete of any similar collection in the world and was part of the Society's heritage. It is now stored away at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and forgotten by almost everyone.

Devoted staff who have such a professional interest and have brought life to the museum cannot be expected to spend their lives watching it disappear. All the old stalwarts who built the Society and created and developed the museum by their gifts and who had a vision of its importance to future generations of pharmacists will be turning in their graves.

There is only one thing for it — the Council must think again and reverse its decision. It will then regain respect among the membership.

E. J. Shellard
Hounslow,
Middlesex

Define attitudes to museum

From Dr G. B. Drummond, MRPharmS

It was alarming news that the financial stability of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is under such threat that economies in respect of the museum and of the British Society for the History of Pharmacy should be contemplated (PJ, 20 October, p579).

Council decisions of this kind are presumably reached by a majority and if the philistines supporting the idea are reluctant to confess, possibly those who were against the decision would be proud to claim credit for their opposing views.

My feeling is that members of the Society should at least insist upon candidates at the next Council election defining their attitude on the subject when time comes for "election addresses".

G. B. Drummond
Hull,
North Humberside

Incredulity at museum decision

From Professor P. J. Houghton, MRPharmS

I would like to add my voice to the considerable stream of disquiet voiced in The Journal over recent weeks concerning the decision of Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council to curtail the access to, and activities of, the museum (PJ, 20 October, p579).

My discussions with academics and health professionals from other disciplines have produced an almost universal expression of incredulity that a professional body would do such a thing. The impression that I get is that it reinforces the prejudice of those who believe that pharmacists are only glorified shopkeepers with a shopkeeper's mentality.

Can I suggest that it be made mandatory that those standing in the Council elections next year clearly state their stance on the matter in their manifestos and, for those Council members seeking re-election, that they state how they voted? That at least will allow the membership to express their feelings and enable some attempt at democracy in such an important decision.

Peter J Houghton
Professor of Pharmacognosy,
King's College London

Donors object to museum decision

From Mr M. W. Buckley, MRPharmS, and Mrs J. M. Buckley, MRPharmS

May we add our names to those of the many people who have objected to the Council's decision to withdraw funding from the museum (PJ, 20 October, p579)?

We, like many others, have given items to build up the museum. If these items are dispersed, the Society will never again have the opportunity to rebuild such a good collection, and future pharmacists will not be able to go back to the roots of pharmacy.

We are disgusted with the Council's decision and believe it should be reversed.

M. W. Buckley
J. M. Buckley
Ashtead,
Surrey

Don't look backwards

From Mr P. A. N. Johnstone, MRPharmS

Call me a philistine, but I completely fail to see the value of the museum, and would rather see the money spent on moving forwards rather than looking backwards.

Peter Johnstone
Warrington,
Cheshire

Some Society departments should relocate

From Mr P. Jenkins, MRPharmS

Our people at Lambeth have to initiate and see through a considerable amount of work for the continued development and success of our profession. That is their job, but is it being done in the most cost-effective surroundings?

We are told that, as work must be carried out on the building and some plant and machinery are in need of replacements, in addition to other increased costs connected with developing services, fees must rise and some functions will be cut back. These are the traditional routes to take when financial problems arise; however while we do not know what ideas have been rejected we must expect that other ideas have been considered.

For example, it has often been suggested that HQ moves out of the capital, but this is not a sensible option since our senior officers must be close to the charmed centre which the nation's decision-makers inhabit.

But do the other departments need to be by the Thames? Some have been dispersed but what about those remaining?

The departments to be moved out must be those which are IT intense but not location-sensitive since, these days, down the line is often more important than down the corridor. I will suggest just two.

Our registry is not as speedy or accurate as it could be and we are told this is partly due to difficulties in getting staff in an expensive part of London. A move to a site which has lower costs per square metre makes sense. The administration of the scheme to assist pharmacists in difficulties does not have to be near the Thames. Being near the Taff, or elsewhere, would not detract from a properly managed service.

A limited relocation policy would save cash and relieve pressures in the HQ building that could be taken up with the new jobs which have to be done and have to be accommodated somewhere.

If the builders have to come in that makes this an ideal time to consider this option. Has it been considered already and if not why not? We, the membership, would love to know.

Peter Jenkins
Cardiff

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Paracetamol)
Send your letter to The Editor