The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7222 p644
2 November 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 75K

  Advertising
  New products
  'Flu vaccination
  Materia Medica
  Patient packs
  The Profession
  The Society
  Workforce census
  The Council
  CPD

Letters to the Editor

The Profession

How perspectives on practice differ

From Mr R. B. A. Johns, MRPharmS

I have to suggest that both Martin Stephens and Naomi Burns (PJ, 26 October, p605), in expressing in their different ways a degree of optimism about the future of pharmacy, may be guilty of reasoning from the particular to the general.

Throughout my 46 years on the Register, the widespread perception (surely well-founded) of hospital pharmacists has been that of a group of people practising their profession untainted by any hint of commercialism. Lest that seem like a suggestion of "ivory tower syndrome", may I say that through my occupation as a medical representative and consequent contacts with senior pharmacists (some of whom became and remain personal friends) I formed the highest opinion of their professionalism and dedication. However, it is an inescapable fact that their perspective differs from that of their colleagues engaged in either community pharmacy or in the industry, and that the latter emphatically do not share the optimism of your two correspondents (vide the letter from Peter Mutton on the same page).

Finally, may I emphasise that I mean no disrespect to Mr Stephens or Ms Burns in drawing attention to their use of the sort of language ("planning", "vision", etc) employed by the denizens of that ultimate ivory tower, the Department of Health.

R. B. A. Johns
Boston, Lincolnshire

Is anyone listening to the academics?

From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS

Broad Spectrum articles are among The Journal's jewels. The catholicity of content and the oft-times unique perspectives make the page required reading. In a year in which the representation of the membership and the way in which our Royal Pharmaceutical Society governs itself have dominated both your Society pages and your letters columns, there have been two Broad Spectrum articles which have raised fundamental questions about the future of the profession of pharmacy. The first was written by Professor Sandy Florence (PJ, 13 July, p58). In spite of highlighting the danger of losing our leading-edge scientific knowledge, this article elicited not one single response. The second is that of Geoffrey Harding and Dr Kevin Taylor (PJ, 26 October, p604), which emphasised that our specialist knowledge must be combined with a specialised professional attitude, and that such a combination is threatened by a decreasing input from pharmacists within the academic ambit of our universities.

If Florence, Harding and Taylor are correct, there is an urgent need to shift our focus from the current navel contemplation of modernisation to look at the horizon of the future shape of the profession and of the means of attaining that model. Indeed, last week's article pointed to a "binary divide" between pharmaceutical science and practice, whereas there must be a bipartisan approach by both these elements. Should we lose this duality, we can bid farewell to pharmacy having a place of right in academia, industry and administration and we can anticipate further encroachment by other professions into the practice area.

Harding and Taylor also pointed to the academic manpower implications of up to nine additional universities offering degrees in pharmacy. They omitted to acknowledge that we trawl the same limited student pool as other health professions. No one has yet speculated on the impact on the "A"-level scores of future intakes resulting from admitting seven or eight hundred additional students.

Eminent academic pharmacists are using Broad Spectrum to rattle our bars. Is anyone listening?

Ian Caldwell
Larkhall, South Lanarkshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Patient packs)
Next Topic (The Society)