The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7219 p524
12 October 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 60K

  Community pharmacy
  Prescriptions
  Patient packs
  Workforce census
  CHF
  Modernisation
  Antibiotics
  Sociology
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Workforce census

Trying to appease race-relations lobby

From Mr D. K. Rayner, MRPharmS

I echo recent letters from Annie Elliott and Ashok Patel on the Society's census. Several points come to mind — in particular the "ethnic" question appearing in second position in the census — placing it in importance above current work position and area of practice.

Refreshing my mind on the definition of "ethnic" I referred to my dictionary and thesaurus: pertaining to race, originating from a specific racial, linguistic group (connected by common descent, posterity, house, family, tribe or nation). Clearly a wide-ranging definition but one which would include the respected Jewish fraternity (person of Hebrew descent) — absent from census definitions.

I also considered "origin" in the context of "ethnic" and came to the conclusion that one's parents were not capable of being considered an origin except subjectively. Ethnic origins must, therefore, be taken as far back as possible, in any way to qualify as original. In my case, born with totally white hair and blue eyes would indicate a probable Scandinavian origin. Likewise my surname was, until the 14th century, a Christian name, still found as such in Germany in the form Reiner. If I am to state my ethnic origin accurately, it is most likely Scandinavian, but of German descent, down the paternal line.

Similarly my distant cousin, with army parents, was born in Singapore. Six months later and she would have been born in Chester. So much for origins if only taken back one generation.

As others commented at the time of the National Census, crystallised definitions can become arrant nonsense. Clearly, therefore, if the evidence on which our Society is to spend money, time and research is a nonsense, then so will the outcome be a nonsense.

I am totally unconvinced by the utterances of the pharmacy practice research department, that the Society is a quasi public body in terms of the Race Relations Acts.

I checked with my general practitioner daughter and she has never been asked such ethnic origin questions by her own professional bodies, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council.

There is every indication that the Society is charging with ill-considered momentum down a pathway designed solely to appease the race-relations lobby but where the only likely outcome is more and more evidence-gathering and even greater future political correctness and potential divisiveness.

I too treat this census question with the contempt which it deserves.

David K. Rayner
Bradford

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Patient packs)
Next Topic (CHF)