The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7212 p247-249
24 August 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 55K

  EHC
  Medication errors
  Drugs of porcine origin
  Patient packs
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Society

There is no conspiracy on modernisation

From Mr E. J. H. Mallinson, FRPharmS

It is gratifying to see the interest in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's modernisation programme and that so many pharmacists are involved in the debate. What is not so pleasing is the implication of those who do not agree with the options set out by the modernisation steering group that its members "do not have the members' interests at heart" (Kathryn Marsh, PJ, 10 August, p190). Most members of the group are members of the Society; some have family who are also pharmacists. They are hardly likely to take the Society down a road which, ultimately, is not to the mutual benefit of members and public alike.

The task ahead of us is complicated and we are working to a predetermined timetable. It is made even more difficult by those who once held positions of authority within the Society forgetting that when one is no longer in office, one quickly loses touch. This is a situation common to all who move from one job to another and should be recognised as such. The general membership of the Society, however, still sees these individuals as the "voice of authority", particularly when their views are articulately presented in the letters columns of the PJ.

The reality of the situation is that the Society has no option but to modernise and it is not tenable to assume that because we, as a profession, have not suffered from the likes of Shipman and Bristol that we can remain unchanged. Shipman and Bristol have changed our worlds forever and there is no going back to the heady days when a professional's opinion was accepted without question. Rather than act like ostriches or claim "we're all right Jack" we should take the more circumspect approach of "there but for the grace of God go we all". We can either undertake the exercise of reform ourselves and, hopefully, put forward a structure acceptable to the Government, or have it done for us. This is no idle threat: the nursing profession, many times larger than ours, has been reorganised by the Government to a structure not of the nurses' choosing. Equally, as a profession we are not much larger than the physiotherapists, one of the 12 professions now regulated by the Health Professions Council. We could easily end up joining them.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has, in the recent past, been unique among the British health regulators, combining as it does a professional and regulatory role (somewhat akin to combining the roles of the General Medical Council and the Royal Colleges but not, as some would wish, those of the GMC and British Medical Association). The Kennedy report has highlighted the strengths that such a combination of roles brings and has redefined regulation in terms of the now familiar 12 components. We should welcome the fact that others are being encouraged to emulate us rather than bemoaning what we perceive we may lose in any changed structure. Recent history has shown that some of the Society's activities, cherished by many, have been threatened by the present system.

There is no conspiracy. The staff have a difficult enough job to do (in addition to all the day-to-day tasks required to keep the organisation running) without being portrayed as machiavellian, conspiring to oversee the demise of the organisation for which they work. Many of them are pharmacists too, and it is their profession as well as their employer. Just because the views of the modernisation steering group correspond, in parts, to the views of the chief pharmacist at the English Department of Health does not mean that he and his political masters are pulling the strings. There are many contributors to the process in hand and the steering group is mindful that the Society registers and provides professional support to all pharmacists, not just those who work for and in the National Health Service. We still have a long way to go before the final structures emerge and the clock is ticking. We must start to think with our heads and not just with our hearts if we are to succeed in achieving the best for our profession in the next hundred years.

Edward Mallinson
Glasgow

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Patient packs)