The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7214 p319-323
7 September 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 65K

  Emergency hormonal contraception (EHC)
  Olanzapine
  Drug interactions
  Consent
  Tablet crushing
  Modernisation
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Society

More spin than substance

From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS

I really cannot allow the rhetoric (PJ, 24 August, p249) of Edward Mallinson to go unchallenged. He dismisses the opinions of the 11 past presidents of the Society who are unanimous in their opposition to the actions of the Modernisation Steering Group as, essentially, those of "yesterday's men". I will leave others to judge whether these erudite individuals can be so easily dismissed, but the fatal flaw in Mr Mallinson's argument is that the opposition goes much wider than that. Lined up alongside the past presidents are the board of the National Pharmaceutical Association, the members of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the Young Pharmacists' Group. It is somewhat disingenuous not to have mentioned these, and counting myself as one among them, it will be interesting to see how we are also to be summarily dismissed.

Why should the Government wish to impose upon the profession a regulatory structure that does not have our support, unless there is an overriding public interest argument for so doing? Unlike some other professional bodies who have been brought under the Government's own regulatory control, the Society, as currently constituted, has an unimpeached record of acting in the public interest. It is highly unlikely that the Government will feel justified in tearing down a structure with such a good track record. Moreover, taking professional regulation into its own hands carries huge political risks for the Government since any failure by the Health Professions Council will be seen by the public as a direct failure of the Government itself.

I will not allow Mr Mallinson to paint everyone who opposes the steering group's views as failing to grasp the modernisation agenda: nothing could be further from the truth, and the YPG's proposals go a long way towards addressing the Government's regulatory requirements. Of course the Society must modernise and of course no profession can afford to stand still. Our opposition is not to the principles of modernisation but to the opaque processes, unreasonable timetable and unjustified conclusions of the Modernisation Steering Group.

It is sad to see our professional body becoming a political poodle. Mr Mallinson's letter is more "spin" than "substance" and Mr Mallinson and the Modernisation Steering Group have themselves fallen at the first hurdle — that of representing the views of the profession to the Government, and, by their actions, have lost our confidence.

Graham Phillips
St Albans, Hertfordshire

This is how it is going to be

From Mr J. R. Martin, MRPharmS

Ann Lewis' reply to the letter published on behalf of several members and myself (PJ, 31 August, p281) regarding the imposition of a mandatory code of conduct was much as expected. I would, for myself, simply like to ask why intentions are put up for any form of discussion when they are not open for comment?

The Modernisation Steering Group's discussion paper talks in terms of "would" rather than "will", implying that the matter is not finalised. I see that the intention is to incorporate the code in the Byelaws "once it has been informed by experience". The experience of some Council members and the perceptions among some Society members have not been at all positive. Will these experiences inform the final position in any way?

As suggested most recently by the Institute of Pharmacy Management International (PJ, 31 August, p269), this has been another clear example of how the consultation and open discussion on modernisation has turned out to be no such thing. Personally, I am starting to feel it would save us all a lot of time and trouble if the Council would just come clean and say: "This is how it is going to be. Live with it."

Jonathan Martin
Wallingford, Oxfordshire

Need to know the true opinions of candidates

From Ms E. A. Mishon, MRPharmS

As an ordinary pharmacist and voter in every Council election, I gave Sultan Dajani my first vote in 2001. He was elected with more votes than any other candidate. More votes than our President Marshall Davies. The vote would indicate that of the candidates in 2001 Mr Dajani most closely represented the opinions of the electorate. Yet his function is being curtailed by a requirement to sign a "mandatory" code of conduct to conform to corporate governance.

I can only endorse, and I have already done so, the letter from Jon Martin et al (PJ, 31 August, p280) and I fail to understand Ann Lewis's reasoning in the reply she gave to Mr Martin. Her replies, debatably in my estimation, are often treated as definitive.

Miss Lewis says that such codes of conduct as imposed on existing Council members are normal requirements for bodies that perform functions of a public nature. Please note they are not essential requirements and therefore must be discretionary. We are pharmacist members, so far, of an independent body, not necessarily subject to the indiscriminate requirements of other bodies, whoever they are. The Society should not be influenced in any way by others, eg, the General Medical Council, the Royal College of Nursing, etc.

Miss Lewis says the proposal is not new — new or not, in the view of many pharmacists, it is wrong.

In order for me to vote in future elections I need to know the true opinions of the candidates, not the views which are acceptable by "corporate governance".

Anne Mishon
Laurac le Grand, France

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Modernisation)