The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7185 p196
16 February 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Which way forward?

This week's cover symbolically illustrates some of the options facing the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as it grapples with the demands of the Government to modernise professional regulation. The options are outlined here.

Five alternatives are described, although other ideas will be welcomed by the Society, to be examined by the modernisation steering group before any firm proposals are put to the profession.

Driving the whole process is Government policy. The likelihood of change being imposed if the Society does not modernise its regulatory structure and function is high. The Kennedy report, following the children's heart surgery fiasco at Bristol Royal Infirmary, informs all Government thinking on the question of professional regulation by expanding the concept from solely dealing with discipline and poor performance to embrace safety, quality standards and competence.

The paragraphs in the separate section that first need to be read and absorbed appear on the second page. These paragraphs, together with the one describing the role of the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professions, need careful scrutiny because they explain precisely at what the Society and Council are aiming. They underline that the need for reform has not been plucked out of the sky by some mavericks out to undermine the profession and unsettle the membership but, rather, that without some reform there is little future for the Society as an independent self-regulator.

Each option in the pull-out section comes with pros and cons, and it is acknowledged that what is perceived as an advantage by one group may be thought to be a disadvantage by another. Whether or not the reform in question requires primary or secondary legislation is also mentioned.

The five options are: maintaining the status quo; retaining the regulatory and professional roles within a reformed Society; splitting the regulatory and professional roles of the Society, with the Society retaining the professional role; splitting the regulatory and professional roles of the Society, with the Society retaining the regulatory role; and merging the Society with other pharmacy bodies.

Members of the Society are asked to send their detailed responses to the proposals to Christine Gray, modernisation programme project manager, by 28 March. There is also a survey that The Journal is co-ordinating on behalf of the modernisation programme (p226), which will give a snapshot response to the proposals. Members are invited to return it by 11 March or to complete it online.

Reform of the Society is a serious matter because it affects every member. And, whatever the outcome, although we can guarantee that not every member of the Society will be happy, members must agree that they are being given an opportunity to participate in the process.

Back to Top