The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7194 p543
20 April 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 80K

  Supervision
  Checking technicians
  Drug-herb interactions
  NHS
  Community pharmacy
  Hospital pharmacy
  Prison pharmacy
  The Profession
  Wholesaling
  CPD
  Pharmacy practice
  Dispensing
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Alternative modernisation options

From Mr J. D.Khan, MRPharmS

It was refreshing to read Joy Wingfield's Broad Spectrum article "Getting to grips with modernisation" (PJ, 23 March, p396) which focused the debate on the key issues rather than the ambiguities emanating out of Lambeth. Although I endorse the sentiments of her article I do not subscribe to her notion that the College of Pharmacy Practice (for which she is a governor) can adequately fulfil the role of an "accrediting" body since, like the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, this organisation is also badly in need of updating and becoming a body of relevance to the practising professional. In both these organisations revolution rather than evolution is needed.

Although I have submitted my comments to the "ill composed" modernisation committee, I am still concerned at the narrow remit of options offered for the Society and enclosed comments which seem biased to the status quo position, and worse still The Journal's woefully inadequate analysis of its snapshot survey. I get the feeling that the "hierarchy" already have a position on this issue, regardless of what the membership say. This is reminiscent of the spin in Tony Blair's Government.

My preferred option, which does not fall into the categories listed by the modernisation committee, is simple. There needs to be a single body that oversees registration and regulation of the profession and another single body that accredits pharmacists and pharmacist services encompassing standards, etc. There also needs to be a single body that oversees postgraduate education and continuing professional development and, most importantly, a single body that represents only pharmacists. This would be an umbrella organisation that had sections underneath it representing the various disciplines in pharmacy. Ideally all these bodies would be independent of one another but would work synergistically. The bodies at present that can best fulfil the above criteria and have the endorsement of the membership should slot into the positions dependent upon function.

I concur with the views expressed by Malcolm Almond in his Broad Spectrum article (PJ, 6 April, p464) that there are too many bodies that are unfocused and act on vested interests rather than promoting pharmacists. The current Council position pays lip service to the Government agenda and I believe that, rather than list short-term obstacles, the Council should concentrate on medium- to long-term goals.

Will the modernisation committee share with the membership alternative models to the ones in their questionnaire, such as the suggestion from Graeme Hall (PJ, 6 April, p468)? I think the Society should adopt the regulation/representation function because I do not believe it can represent pharmacists, especially if read in the context of Marshall Davies's interpretation (PDF* 100K) of the word "membership" (PJ, 6 April, p482).

I hope this consultation exercise does not become another futile, bureaucratic exercise that yields nothing other than meeting the wishes and aspirations of the hierarchy at Lambeth in support of the status quo.

J. D. Khan
Rochdale, Lancashire

Wrong comparison

From Mr R. Blyth, FRPharmS, and others

You draw a false comparison in your recent leading article on changes in regulatory bodies (PJ, April 6, p452). The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is not the same type of body as the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the Health Professions Council. The latter two are regulatory bodies pure and simple, as were their forerunners, whereas the Society is a professional association as well as being a regulatory body. (It has an additional law enforcement role.) This invalidates the comments that you make.

You seem, like the Lambeth establishment generally, to be absolutely determined to drive hard down the regulatory route to the exclusion of the Society as the professional association of pharmacists. But there are ways of modernising the Society's regulatory function in the light of current demands from Government and elsewhere without wrecking it as a professional association. The Society itself has put forward a plan that would greatly increase lay participation in disciplinary procedures and in the auditing of competence to practise while retaining the present composition of the Council (PJ, 17 February 2001, p220).

Robert Blyth
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

John Ferguson
Haywards Heath, West Sussex

Douglas Simpson
Beckenham, Kent

All fellows should be listed

From Mr W. G. Peberdy, FRPharmS

An abridged version of the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists is now available online on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's website. I looked at "Fellows" in the "Members and Fellows"section. Here there was the statement, "Fellowship of the Society is awarded to members who have made a distinguished contribution to the profession", and 496 names of such fellows were listed. However, anyone who noticed (PJ, 30 March, p449) that there are currently 1,128 fellows is likely to wonder where the other 632 have got to. Under Section III of the Byelaws, it states that "all members registered as pharmaceutical chemists on or before the first day of February 1951 shall be designated fellows of the Society". So the description of fellows first given is incomplete.

I have no objection to awarding fellowships to those who have given good service to the profession but it must be borne in mind that many of those who became fellows under Byelaws Section III may also have given service worthy of recognition. But since they are already fellows they can hardly be proposed for election as fellows and be so recorded. If we are to list, as we have done, on the website, persons who are worthy of a fellowship award, we should at least distinguish all fellows in the web membership entry in some way, such as by the letter "F", as is done in the printed register and amend the entry in the members and fellows link briefly to explain this.

William Peberdy
Scarborough, North Yorkshire

Retention fee problem

From Mr V. A. Henderson, MRPharmS

On 4 March I sent a cheque to pay my retention fee. On 16 March I received a letter from the Society telling me that unless I pay my fees forthwith I will be struck from the register in six weeks' time. On 20 March I telephoned the registration section of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and was informed that no mail will be attended to for the next several weeks, and that if I have not heard from them in five to six weeks' time to telephone again.

When I checked with my bank I found the cheque I sent had not been presented for payment. Is it not time that some of the vast amounts of fees that we are now being asked to pay be directed to increasing the staff in the registration department in order that they can keep up with their work?

In the meantime — from "limbo" — I am,

V. A. Henderson
Fakenham, Norfolk

Previous Topic (Dispensing)
Send your letter to The Editor