PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society

Home > PJ > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7188 p325-328
9 March 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

Letters

Letters are available in a single PDF* file (70K)

  Spiritual healing
  Baddy chemists
  Community pharmacy
  BPC
  Animals in research
  CHD
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

The Society (2 letters)

Think carefully about long-term consequences

From Mr G. A. Largue, MRPharmS

Ben Hewitt (PJ, 2 March, p287) states that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should become a trade union. Do we not already have these organisations in the way of the National Pharmaceutical Association, Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council and Guild of Hospital Pharmacists?

I agree that the Society needs to do more to publicise pharmacists as professionals, but remember that there are pharmacists in other places of work apart from the community, and would these branches of the profession get a fair share of the publicity if all the sectors were represented by one trade union? I do not think so. Also in the community, who would this new trade union be representing? The contractors or the employees?

If the Society becomes a trade union, there will have to be a new regulatory body set up which means us having to pay another fee to another body. Some of us already complain about the fees we pay to one Society. If we have to pay two fees — one to stay registered and another to a trade union — will that not add up to an extra cost to us, the members? There will also be no obligation to sign up to this "trade union" and therefore the Society will no longer represent all of pharmacists.

So, please, before deciding which direction the Society should take, think carefully about the long-term consequences.

Gordon Largue
Keith, Banffshire

Why modernisation is essential

From Mr K. H. Tee, MRPharmS

Is the £1.5m for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's programme of modernisation money well invested? It is supposed to include ongoing work with the Department of Health to pave the way for "mandatory CPD" and "long-awaited improvements to disciplinary powers". A response as to how these two objectives will benefit the profession and the members in practice will be welcomed. The answer ought to be constructed around a realistic model of a pharmacist working 39 to 50 hours a week with ever increasing workload and ever decreasing ancillary staff and morale.

Koon Hien Tee
Scunthorpe, South Humberside

CHRISTINE GLOVER, member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's modernisation steering group, replies:

The Council has already announced the workstreams involved in its programme for modernisation of its roles as a health professional regulator across the wide range of activities that define modern health professional regulation. Such a programme is not an option but is essential to the future of the profession, which is why other health professional regulatory bodies are undertaking similar work.

The Government is in the process of creating an overarching council to oversee the health professional regulators to ensure consistency and conformity with modern principles of good regulation. There is an explicit obligation upon regulators to put patients' interests first, to ensure and demonstrate that health professionals are competent and fit to practise and to promote continuous improvement within the professions. Rolling out CPD to all pharmacists over the next few years and addressing the Society's remit, powers and functions will meet this requirement.

In the meantime, if we do not organise ourselves and demonstrate that we are working towards these goals, then others' ideas and standards will be imposed. The £1.5m programme of reform that we have embarked upon is a vital investment in the future of the pharmacy profession.

Previous Topic (CHD)
Send your letter to The Editor