The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7206 pp53-57
13 July 2002
PDF* 75K
|
|
The Pharmaceutical Journal |
|
|
PDF* 75K |
Repeat dispensing
|
The SocietyGive YPG’s radical approach a chanceFrom Mr B. G. Spencer, MRPharmS Your editorial heading (PJ, 22 June, p860), slightly adapted, sums up a belief among many members, and 11 former Presidents of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (PJ, 6 July. P15), that the President protests too much methinks! His contribution via the Society's pages (PJ, 6 July, p35) has all the hallmarks of Downing Street style spin, which does nothing for the image of the current leader of our profession. The membership, I believe, are not keen to be addressed in this style. Perhaps many hundreds of pinpricks have finally irritated the Modernisation Steering Group enough to make such "explanation" necessary? Admittedly, it is difficult for the Society to promulgate its ideas other than through its official journal, but one cannot but be disconcerted by the apparent trend of Modernisation Steering Group proposals, which all seem to indicate that we are being pulled by our noses to be slaughtered in the abattoir of Government by the threat of imposed legislation. Is it not about time that, instead of going meekly to the eventual dining table to be served up in a style of our tormentors' choosing, we make protests that will be acted upon, setting out our strong case for remaining as we are? Why should we go cap in hand because of the Kennedy report and the Shipman scandal? Our record over many years has been exemplary, our system is robust, and we are open via the present set up to make improvements which the Privy Council members could suggest, if necessary. Minor keyhole surgery on procedures may be needed. Any insistence by the Government that fundamental changes to our present systems should be made should only be done on the basis of gaining compromises that enhance the Society's status and that ensure that regulatory functions should not be subservient to its professional responsibilities. We in pharmacy are for once in a strong position; we should use the memberships' most able and effective negotiators to enhance this status. Let us search diligently and select a team for such negotiations, who will act forcefully and effectively in achieving these aims. The Young Pharmacists Group's refreshing and radical approach should be given a chance, too. We need the input of their relatively less conservative approach to the status quo. They will be expected to implement any new strategy which we negotiate now over their working lives. To ignore such valuable input is sheer folly. Brian Spencer Why consult over the summer period?From Dr A. S. Hersom, FRPharmS, and others This committee of the Hull branch of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society disagrees with many of the points in the recent PJ questionnaire on modernisation since it assumes that we all agree that the Council itself should be the regulatory body for the profession. We strongly believe that the Young Pharmacists Group proposal (PDF 50K) (PJ, 29 June, p906) is much better. However, because of the way in which the questionnaire has been drafted we cannot fill out the form as it stands. We believe this is unfortunate since it will bias the results provided by the membership. We are concerned that yet again the Society has decided to consult the membership over the summer period when most branches are not meeting, many people are on vacation and with a short time allowed for responses. This does not make for a good consultative or democratic process. We are also concerned that preregistration trainees appear to be excluded. The day after our meeting, a letter appeared in The Journal from 11 past presidents (PJ, 6 July, p15) expressing disagreement with Lambeth's policy on modernisation. We agree with their view that pharmacists should be e-mailing their support of the YPG's proposals to the Modernisation Steering Group. A. S. Hersom G. M. Hill A. Hilton J. Peacham P. J. McGorry H. M. Edmondson J. McDonald B.Wells J. Lane M. P. Smith Hull Branch Committee, The Council must have more lay membersFrom Mrs C. Glover, FRPharmS As Immediate Past President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, I have to take issue with many of the points raised by past president colleagues in your columns (PJ, 6 July, p15). The broader definition of health professional regulation that has now been adopted by the Government recognises that "regulation" goes far beyond registration and discipline. Modern health professional regulation must encompass all the processes that educate, train, register, continually develop, support and revalidate a health care professional during the course of his or her career. It also, of course, needs to deal with those professionals whose conduct or competence is unacceptable. The Council has decided that the Society will move forward as a regulatory body and professional organisation. This builds on the Society's long-standing and effective approach. By underpinning its regulatory work with its role as a leadership and professional development organisation, the Society has created an impressive track record, which importantly provides an excellent basis for developing an organisation to meet future needs. When the report of the Health Act working party, which dealt mainly with discipline, was sent to the Government in March, the Council recognised that its proposals were likely to be interim while the Government completed the development of its strategy for health regulation. It comes as no surprise that the Council has had to amend its plans to meet the new requirements, which cover the whole scope of regulation in the modern sense. The Government has given clear signals that the governing bodies of all health professional regulators must include a significant proportion of lay representatives. Without an increase in lay membership on the Society's Council, the Council will no longer be able to act as the governing body of the Society. Such an outcome would disempower the Council and disenfranchise pharmacists who would no longer be able to elect pharmacists to the governing body of their professional and regulatory body. Indeed, there would be a risk that the regulation of pharmacy would be undertaken by another body such as the Health Professions Council. This would effectively mean the end of the profession's current level of influence over its regulation and would be in the best interests of neither the public nor the profession. Input from outside the profession can help us to fulfil all our functions better. Far from regarding lay involvement in the Council as a threat, I consider it to be an opportunity to strengthen pharmacy's accountability to the public and to create an informed and inclusive framework for the profession. The public has a legitimate interest in the regulation of health professionals and we should welcome the opportunity of developing the Society so that it can continue to promote the highest level of public confidence in the profession. I am particularly concerned that there appears to be a view that the Society's roles as a professional body mirror those of the British Medical Association, which is a trade union. Under no circumstances could the Society combine the role of the regulatory body with that of a trade union, which negotiates its members' pay and benefits. This has never been the case and would certainly not be countenanced in today's climate. To do this now would create a conflict of interests which the new overarching regulator would not accept. Christine Glover What does “regulation” mean?From Mr R. Gartside, FRPharmS It is sad to see the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society using words in the same way as Lewis Carroll, to have whatever meaning he wishes to give them, rather than their generally accepted meanings (PJ, 6 July p35). Thus he says that in its "modern" context, "regulation" means something much broader than the traditional one of dealing with discipline and poor performance. "Regulation", we are told, besides its usually accepted meaning of keeping the profession on the straight and narrow, law-abiding path, now includes education, training, setting standards, promoting good practice, and almost anything else one may care to think of. Pity that none of the dictionaries available to me agrees with this definition. All of them speak of regulation as the action of bringing things or people into conformity with a set of rules, but — and this is the essential point — they do not speak of regulation as being the writing of those rules. Indeed, in other spheres the police, for example, enforce the law but do not write it. Law is written by Parliament and judged by the courts. This separation of powers is usually seen to be essential for a civilised society, where the laws are written by a completely separate set of people from the enforcers. Only in dictatorships and other gangster states are the activities combined, yet this is the arrangement which is now proposed for the profession of pharmacy. Here, I think, lies the root cause of the present extreme unease within the profession over the "modernisation" of the Society. Already we have had a whole procession of eminent senior pharmacists publish their views that we are set on a disastrous course which bids fair to destroy the profession. The latest letter (PJ, 6 July, p15) is signed by no fewer than 11 past presidents of the Society — I would have thought that was almost all of the surviving past presidents who are not members of the current Council. These veterans support, and this is significant, the proposals put forward by the Young Pharmacists Group — both ends of the profession, as it were, independently acting in concert. The unanimity of thought among those in a position to make an informed judgement is impressive. We have seen in the past week Government proposals to cut a year off the training period for hospital consultants on the grounds that the shortage of highly skilled medical staff cannot otherwise be met than by deskilling them. The proposals include a sort of sub-consultant to get the number up. This is proposing to meet a shortage of organ grinders by training more monkeys. Are we next? There comes a time when you have to decide whether you are a man or a mouse: whether you are going to stand up for what you believe or meekly acquiesce in injustice. That time has now come, and, regretfully, a majority of our Council are squeaking merrily and hunting for cheese at the behest of Government. In due course I am sure that we can expect to see deskilling proposals for pharmacy, which will be approved by a Council having an effective majority of "lay members" who have been appointed by the Government. I do not need to spell out the implications, but the words "Third World" spring unbidden to mind. There are many individual pharmacists and groups who are intensely unhappy at the present state of affairs and they are beginning to come together. The Council must change its mind and adopt a different scheme since the present one patently does not have the support of the profession. R. Gartside Has there been bias in the modernisation process?From Mr R. C. Mills, MRPharmS I was concerned to read in the report of the June Council meeting (PJ, 29 June, p930) comments by several Council members that the consultation papers on the constitution of Council, on which the membership have been asked to comment, had not been discussed or sanctioned by the Council. Peter Curphey suggested that Council members should "trust the steering committee to do its work", but I fear that many members do not trust those in authority at Lambeth and agree with Professor Michael Schofield that "the membership were being led towards a particular conclusion" by a significant bias in the way these consultation documents have been written. If members of the Council had had the opportunity of input into the consultation documents, it might not have been left to the Young Pharmacists Group (PDF 50K) to argue the case for a regulatory authority within the framework of a professional membership organisation (PJ, 29 June, p906). This principle met with acclamation at the branch representatives' meeting in May when put forward by a past president of the Society and yet the consultation documents appear to be willing to give up, without any resistance, professional responsibility for members in order to maintain and extend the regulatory authority. A further example of bias can be seen in the comment made in the key points on the constitution of the Council (PJ, June 29, p926), where it is suggested that the single transferable vote system "is broadly seen as fair". Maybe it is, by the existing members of the Council, but not by the general membership, who have asked at the past four BRMs for this method of voting for Council members to be withdrawn. There is nothing "fair" in having only one vote when electing seven members. R. C. Mills Are we members of the Society or are we registrants?From Mr N. P. Simmons, MRPharmS I understand that the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (Marshall Davies) recently addressed a meeting in Cardiff at which he firmly stated his opinion that individuals are not members of the Society, but are registrants. If this is the case, should we not be told to change our professional designation from MRPharmS to RRPSGB or RRPharmS? Nigel Simmons
|
|||||||||
|
Send your letter to The Editor |
Previous Topic (Evidence-based medicine) |
Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs Classifieds | Site
Map | Contact us
©The Pharmaceutical Journal
