The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7190 p397-401
23 March 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 75K

  Remuneration
  Pharmacist prescribing
  Community pharmacy
  Checking technicians
  MMR
  Careers
  CPD
  Packaging
  Baddy chemists
  GSK
  The Profession
  Council elections
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

Baddy chemists

Missing the point

From Mr A. G. M. Madge, FRPharmS

Surely Simon Whitaker, with his well documented and thought provoking "Baddy chemists" article (PJ, 2 March, p288) misses some important points in the wish to make all pharmacists "scientists".

Surely it is the duty of community pharmacists and others to study and research homoeopathy and alternative medicines, not only to have personal knowledge of the subject but also to be the fount of knowledge for their customers and community.

That the pharmacist or pharmacy is a believer in so-called "quack medicine" is immaterial. The pharmacist as a "scientist" is the source of information to whom the public come. Neglect of this means that advice or knowledge is sought from other sources and not necessarily a pharmacy. Credence must be given to the ordinary person to assess and consider whether the knowledge given appeals or not. Thus the knowledge imparted by the pharmacist is invaluable to customers and the community. The pharmacist has done his "scientific" duty and is not regarded as a "baddy".

Mervyn Madge
Plymouth, Devon

Jumping on the gravy train

From Mr S. Whitaker, MRPharmS

May I reassure Professor Peter Houghton (PJ, 16 March, p361) that I did not in fact dismiss all herbal remedies as "quackery and lacking scientific evidence". A careful reading of my "Broad Spectrum" article (PJ, 2 March, p288) reveals that my only reference to herbal remedies was in protestation at the stocking of "whichever previously unheard-of herbal preparation is this week's miracle cure for arthritis" by community pharmacists.

I am well aware of the wide range of herbal remedies supported by a sound evidence base, and accept that the place of these remedies in modern medicine is both legitimate and assured. However, like all practising community pharmacists, I am often faced with elderly patients, debilitated by chronic conditions such as arthritis, whose hopes of a cure for their (usually incurable) condition have been buoyed by advertisements in the popular press for herbal preparations of unknown provenance and unproven benefit. I can think of perhaps a dozen such "miraculous" advances in the field of rheumatology in the past 10 years (each one all but forgotten within a year). Yet, despite these many "breakthroughs" arthritis continues to affect millions of people across the UK. Perhaps some of these exorbitantly priced miracles were not so miraculous after all.

When faced with a sudden surge in requests for such products, pharmacists can do one of two things: (i) explain that the remedy is completely unheard of, is only recommended by the popular press, has yet to prove its worth in clinical trials and is therefore probably not worth its vastly inflated price, or (ii) jump on the gravy train and fill his pockets.

Baddy Chemists invariably do the latter.

Simon Whitaker
Bicester, Oxfordshire

Insufficient evidence

From Mr D. Livingstone, MRPharmS

I do not suppose your recent correspondents, nay zealots, vociferously defending homeopathy would be at all interested in reading the latest issue of Effective Health Care (volume 7, no 3, 2002) from the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. It states: "There is currently insufficient evidence of effectiveness either to recommend homoeopathy as a treatment for any specific condition, or to warrant significant changes in the provision of homoeopathy." (See PJ, 9 March, p313.)

Duncan Livingstone
North Lancing, West Sussex

Previous Topic (Packaging)
Next Topic (GSK)
Send your letter to The Editor