The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7183 p137-140
2 February 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

Letters are available in a single PDF* file (65K)

  Prescribing
  Hospital pharmacy
  Community pharmacy
  Locums
  Dose recommendations
  Original pack dispensing
  The Society
  Statutory Committee

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Time to bring clarity to the representation debate

From Mr A. R. Cox, MRPharmS

Several correspondents have made the point that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is a membership organisation or have made reference to the Charter in defence of our Society's position as a membership organisation.

Although the Charter has not yet been rescinded, many members are concerned that this may be the long-term intention of the President and the Secretary and Registrar, given their recent comments.

When a colleague and I attempted to start a debate about the future of our Society by suggesting the representative role and membership role should be split (PJ, 19 August, 2000, p263), John Ferguson, immediate past secretary and registrar, and others countered with an argument that the combination of regulatory and representative roles was beneficial to pharmacy. Despite this difference in opinion, both sides of the argument did make it clear that our Society did have a membership and representative role.

The current leadership seems, so far, to have decided to avoid any debate about representation and membership. Instead, it seems that they have made the decision that our Society will in future be a body only concerned with the continuing professional development and regulation of pharmacists.

One way to interpret your "Bitter pills" editorial (PJ, 15 December 2001, p838) is that our Society is at best a poor example of a membership body. For example, the recently proposed branch reforms seem to be more concerned with Lambeth imposing itself on the branch structure than empowering the membership to influence Lambeth. Decisions made by the branch representatives' meeting seem to be increasingly ignored.

Recently, the Council confirmed the membership of a modernisation steering group, including the President and the Secretary and Registrar, which will "bring forward proposals for modernising the Society's regulatory function and capitalising on the Society's role in professional leadership".

There are two problems with this steering group. From the public statements of both Ann Lewis and Marshall Davies and the brief for the group, it is clear that the general direction that this group will be steered towards does not include a substantial membership role for our Society. Additionally, the use of the word "modernisation" makes it easy to brand those who believe our Society should retain its membership role as Luddites or reactionaries.

It is time to bring some clarity to this debate. The profession is in danger of losing control of its oldest membership organisation. Pharmacists need to unite, and reclaim and protect their Society. Fortunately changes to the Charter require a Council majority, a special general meeting and consent of the Privy Council. Candidates for the next election should state clearly and unambiguously their views on the representative function of our Society in order to allow us, the members, the opportunity to elect those who would continue our Society's role of representing the interests of all pharmacists.

Anthony Cox
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Original pack dispensing)
Next Topic (Statutory Committee)
Send your letter to The Editor