The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7179 p881-884
22-29 December 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Remuneration
  The Profession
  The Council
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Society (5 letters)

Accountability and transparency

From Mr P. Walton, MRPharmS

I was interested to read the article written by the President, Marshall Davies, entitled "New challenges for the Society"(PJ, 17 November, p727). I could not agree more that we need accountability and transparency.

With so much support from the profession for these tenets, why is it that I was prevented earlier this year from publishing the full transcript of a Statutory Committee inquiry?

I arranged a scheme that allowed interested pharmacists to see my original copy of that transcript for the cost of posting it on to the next person who wished to see it. It is still being posted between interested pharmacists.

I now have been trying to obtain another report of a Statutory Committee inquiry because there are some details in it I wish to check. I sent my £35 and a request for the document and by reply was sent a form, which I would have to sign, that would forbid me from disseminating the document or any information gleaned from it. This is a massive new intrusion into transparency, which I suspect was provoked by my original scheme for dissemination of transcripts. I refuse to give up the right to disseminate information by signing secrecy documents.

As far as transparency is concerned from my perspective, the Society sits in a position of cynical hypocrisy: cynical about others' claims that transparency is lacking, and hypocritical about its own claims that transparency exists.

As far as a representational role is concerned, the Society seems to represent those who are already in powerful positions and its own interests, even when these are at odds with principles of justice.

Philip Walton
Manchester

Read the Royal Charter

From Mr D. I. Simpson, FRPharmS

So, according to you (PJ, December 15, p838) the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is not a membership organisation. I can assure you that you are completely mistaken. I suggest you read the Charter, from which the Society draws a substantial part of its powers and which has not, despite the bizarre attitude now being struck by some at the Society, been rescinded.

Douglas Simpson
Beckenham, Kent

A nasty surprise

From Mr S. A. Wheatley, MRPharmS

With reference to your leading article (PJ, 15 December, p838), I have always been aware that "the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is not a trade union ...". However, I have always cherished the thought that the Society provides support to protect the interests and well-being of its members. Thus to read that the Society is not a membership organisation is not only a "bitter pill to swallow" but also a very nasty surprise. Perhaps I misunderstood the definitions?

Stan Wheatley
Blandford Forum, Dorset

Has the Charter been revoked?

From Mr J. Ferguson, FRPharmS

Poor deluded me. Like my nine predecessors as secretary of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, I was led to believe, as the Society's Yearbook states, that the Society was formed in 1841 following success in fending off the threat, by the medical profession, to the livelihood of the then chemists and druggists (as pharmacists were then known, according to the Yearbook). The medical profession sought, by a Bill in Parliament, to make it illegal for the chemists and druggists to recommend a medicine for the treatment of a minor ailment or to advise on how best to use a medicine. Jacob Bell, then the son of the proprietor of a pharmacy in London's Oxford Street, persuaded his colleagues to create a permanent professional organisation to ensure that they were ready to fight any future challenge of a similar nature. The Yearbook suggests that the new Society was founded on 15 April 1841 "to unite the profession into one body, to protect its members' interests and to advance scientific knowledge".

The Society received its Royal Charter in 1843. The text of the current (1953) Charter appears in the Yearbook. Unless the Council is keeping the membership in the dark, this still governs the affairs of the Society. And one of the four Objects of the Society under the 1953 Charter is "To maintain the honour and safeguard and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy."

Your leader, "Bitter pills" (PJ, 15 December, p838), states "that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is not ... a membership organisation" and that this "will be a bitter pill to swallow for many community pharmacists who still view the Society as a membership organisation". If true, it would indeed be a bitter pill, but it is clearly nonsense, unless, as I say, the Charter has been revoked unbeknown to the membership.

As I have made clear in earlier letters and articles, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is currently a unique organisation. Membership is compulsory for all those who wish to practise in an occupation that is reserved by law to those who are registered pharmacists. By law, registration and membership are synonymous. That position was achieved through the efforts of the predecessors of the current members of the Council. The Privy Council members of the Council were appointed by law to ensure that the interests would be safeguarded of those who did not need to be registered as pharmaceutical chemists to practise their occupations (almost all industrial pharmacists and all academic pharmacists, for example) but decided voluntarily to register and thus automatically become members of the Society. The other members of the Council are, however, elected under the provisions of the Charter and Byelaws, not the Pharmacy Act.

The notion that the Society is barred from participating in discussions on the remuneration of pharmacists is based on misleading statements made about the Jenkin judgment. In that judgment it was properly decided that the Society, which had in membership both employer and employee pharmacists, could not fairly represent the interests of both in negotiations on pay and conditions of service. The Retail Pharmacists Union (now the National Pharmaceutical Association) was subsequently formed to represent the interests of employers in the then mainly privately owned community pharmacy sector. The Jenkin judgment said nothing about the Society's position in representing the interests of its members to outside organisations, including the Government.

However, I have always considered it a strength that the Society is not directly involved in remuneration negotiations. When it has expressed concerns about the negative effects of a remuneration structure from the point of view of quality of service, ministers and government officials have listened, knowing that the Society was not negotiating but was speaking from an interested but independent viewpoint. During my term of office with the Society, I can recall two successful interventions on remuneration structure on behalf of hospital pharmacists and one on the status of pharmacists in the armed forces. I also acted as joint secretary of the group chaired by the late Sir Hugh Linstead, comprising representatives of the Society and the predecessor of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, which first recommended the payment of a basic practice allowance to pharmacy contractors; and there have been several occasions on which the Society has made its views known publicly on the adverse implications of decisions taken by the Government on remuneration for pharmacy contractors within the National Health Service.

You report that Professor Schofield and Dr Evans, two of the current nominees of the Privy Council, reminded the Society's Council that "this type of debate" on remuneration could not be deemed suitable for the General Medical Council. They are correct. But that is because, in complete contrast to the Society, which certainly is, the GMC is definitely not a membership organisation. However, in maintaining the honour of its members, the Society also protects the interests of members of the public in their dealings with pharmacists, as the Society's recognised excellent record on disciplinary action demonstrates.

No doubt, as you say, changes are on the way. If these result in the separation of registration as a pharmacist from membership of the Society, as is the policy of some members of the Council, the logical development would be for membership to be voluntary. Among other implications, you, Madam Editor, would no longer have a guaranteed circulation. Until then, however, may I recommend that before you write anything else about the nature of the organisation, you should read Sydney Holloway's excellent political and social history of the Society.

John Ferguson
Haywards Heath, West Sussex

Changing climate means new challenges

From Miss A. M. Lewis, FRPharmS

The debate about whether the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is a membership organisation and, if so, what type of membership organisation, is one of the issues we need to consider in facing the new requirements for self-regulating professions.

The Society is governed by its Charter, by legislation and by its Byelaws. One of the objects listed in the current Charter is "To maintain the honour and safeguard and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy". For the Society, which has roles in professional regulation and professional leadership, its registrants are also its members. However, the Society is not a membership organisation in the same way as is the British Medical Association, or a body such as the Royal Horticultural Society. Pharmacists do not opt to join the Society simply on the basis of the services it can provide to them, and the Society is accountable to stakeholders beyond the profession. Most importantly, the Society confers on its members the privileges, rights and the responsibilities of a health care professional.

It is vital both for the public we serve and for the long-term future of the profession that we demonstrate a continued commitment to serving the public interest. A profession that does not do this cannot survive. However, this does not mean that the Society cannot act in ways that support pharmacists in the exercise of their profession, in the same way as the medical royal colleges assist doctors in their professional practice. It is in the public interest that the profession should maximise its contribution to the development of health care and it is right that the Society should assist the profession to do so.

Nevertheless, as the President has made clear (PJ, 17 November, p727), the changing climate for the regulation of health professionals means that the Society faces new challenges to ensure that it can continue to exercise its responsibilities to the public and the profession. This modernisation programme will run throughout 2002 and will consider issues such as the composition of the Society's Council. Pharmacists will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

Ann Lewis
Secretary and Registrar
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Back to Top

Previous Topic (The Council)
Send your letter to The Editor