PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

	The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 269 No 7224 p712-713 16 November 2002	This page Reprint Photocopy
		PDF* 65K

Letters

  Statins
  BNF
  Medicines in use
  CPD
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

The Society

Changes will undermine representative role

Website needs to be enhanced

Is there support for industrial pharmacists

Changes will undermine representative role

From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS

It is clear that a large body of opinion within the profession believes that while the current proposal to change the structure of the Council may well improve the regulatory credentials of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, it will seriously undermine the Society's representative role.

As such, the article entitled "Which takes precedence? The Society's Charter or Section 60" (PJ, 2 November, p653) is helpful in several ways.

First, it concurs with the independent legal advice that has already been taken privately by some members in relation to what the Society can and cannot do regarding its proposed changes to both the composition of the Council and also to the direction of the Pharmaceutical Society.

Second, it indicates that there are certain actions currently being taken by senior officials at the Society that may already give grounds for a legal challenge by members.

Third, it makes it clear that the changes currently being proposed by the Modernisation Steering Group will require a 75 per cent majority vote on the Council and then a 75 per cent majority of support at a special general meeting of the Society.

Bearing in mind that we are constantly being told that the Society has to deliver its proposals to the Government by the end of the year, it is surprising that the Society has stayed noticeably silent on its plans for holding the required special general meeting. Surely it must have more than a passing interest as to the real strength of its mandate among the membership on this singularly "profession changing" issue.

Many pharmacists are keen to attend such a meeting. Indeed, it would appear that this will be the only forum in which the voices of the membership will not only be heard but will have to be acted upon.

There are many signs that members are preparing themselves and as far as I am aware, despite branch funding cuts recently meted out by the Society, several branches of the Society are even planning to arrange coach transportation.

Perhaps the Society would be good enough to notify the membership of its intentions in this respect through the pages of The Pharmaceutical Journal.

Furthermore, for legal reasons, the Society should make public the details of the exact percentage of Council Members that voted for the proposal to allow a significant number of lay people on to the Council.

Mark Koziol
Birmingham

ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

The article referred to does not, in fact, give a definitive opinion on whether or not the composition of the Society's Council could be changed by means of a Section 60 Order under the Health Act. As indicated in the PJ leader "lawyers will be the winners"; the article is equivocal on this point.

I should also point out that all decisions on the future direction and constitution of the Council have been and will be made by the Council, not "senior officials". The decision that lay members should comprise 30 to 40 per cent of the reformed Council was approved by 17 of the 18 Council members present and voting at that time, a majority of 94 per cent.

The advice taken by the Modernisation Steering group from an expert in constitutional law is that Section 60 Orders could, in fact, have a wide span of application in relation to "the establishment and continuance of a regulatory body", including altering the composition of its Council.

It is already clear that the Society will be seeking a Section 60 order from the Government next year, in order to secure a number of essential components of modern regulation for pharmacy and the public. These include improved disciplinary processes with a more appropriate range of sanctions in fitness-to-practise cases, regulation of pharmacy technicians by the Society and a continuing professional development system for pharmacists to demonstrate that they are keeping their knowledge up to date.

At this point the Council will need to decide on the most appropriate and effective route for amending its composition. The changes to Council required to enable the Society to continue as the regulatory and professional body for pharmacy could potentially be achieved either by first changing the Charter and/or through a Section 60 Order.

The Council has not, however, finalised its view on the precise future structure of the Council, although it has set some criteria for its make-up.

Website needs to be enhanced

From Ms A. Morant, MRPharmS

Although there is much useful information on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's website, I believe that it does not meet the needs of either the members of the Society or of the general public. For example, under the heading "Medicines/ advice for the public", it says that "a survey carried out for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has revealed that young adults may be putting their health at risk and suffering unnecessary symptoms by failing to take medicines properly". So what! Surely, a member of the public referring to the site would want basic emergency information for immediate action and guidance on where to go for further help. Even if the Society is not prepared to provide such useful information, it could at least provide the telephone number for NHS Direct.

Furthermore, the site states that there are 130 branches and 11 regions but there is a paucity of contact information. The fact that only some 30 branches have websites does not mean that the others do not exist. The Society should provide contact details of the chairmen and secretaries of all branches.

My aim in visiting the website was to find information on branch meetings. I was unsuccessful. Such information, mundane as it may be, will be a valuable asset in attracting, maintaining and, one hopes, boosting attendance at meetings.

Another oversight relates to The Pharmaceutical Journal. Although details of a number of useful contacts are given, the name of Olivia Timbs, the PJ's editor, was absent. Since The Journal is the first point of contact between the Society and the membership, I would have thought that her name would be as least as important as a long list of names of Council members, each of which was accompanied by a photograph.

I hope that the Society's site will be enhanced so that it will be worth revisiting in the future.

Annette Morant
Edgware, Middlesex

MARY SNELL, website editor, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

I am sorry that the Society's website does not meet Ms Morant's expectations. The site is currently directed at the pharmacy profession, not the general public, but it is constantly being revised and augmented, and a separate subsite is being developed to cater for the needs of the public. Meanwhile the site is a steadily growing source of information for pharmacists and preregistration trainees, and I hope Ms Morant can be encouraged to revisit the site and explore it further.

Replying to two specific points: first, the Society only places personal contact details on its website after gaining the permission of the person involved to include such details. Branch secretaries are currently being asked for permission to include their e-mail addresses on the website, and those who agree will be included. There are no plans to provide contact details for branch chairmen; the appropriate contact for finding out about a local meeting is the branch secretary. Secondly, it is not clear in which section of the website the writer was hoping to find the name of the editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal, but Olivia Timbs's name is included in the contact lists of headquarters staff. Where any sections of the website omit Ms Timbs by name, this is not an oversight but an administrative arrangement at the request of The Journal.

Is there support for industrial pharmacists

From Mr M. J. How, MRPharmS

In the article (PDF 95K) on "Power, status and pharmacy" (PJ, 28 September, p440) it states: "Pharmacists' manufacturing role has all but disappeared." I hope that what was meant was that pharmacists' extemporaneous manufacturing role in the pharmacy has all but disappeared. Pharmacists' role in manufacturing is alive and well, but no thanks to the support received from pharmacy's professional body.

Recently, while working in the Ukraine advising the government there on how it should modify their national drug law, I asked the Royal Pharmaceutical Society for information about the inspection of pharmacies, an area where I have no experience or competence. I expected that my professional body would support me with a package of information that I could provide to the Government of the Ukraine as an example of how things can be done by a professional organisation. I eventually got a full package of information from the professional body in Sweden, in English with full reports and policies and procedures.

This indicates to me that the organisation at Lambeth is concerned with support for the community and hospital pharmacy sectors. As an industrial pharmacist, I make few demands on the Society for my annual registration fee. This is one occasion where its support for me in my professional activity was sought and found wanting.

Mike How
M. J. H. International Ltd

NIGEL GRAHAM, head of practice, Royal Pharmaceutical Society replies:

I am sorry that Mr How believes that on this occasion he was not fully supported by the Society. I can assure him that the practice division devotes a considerable amount of time and resource solely to industrial pharmacy issues but it must be appreciated that much of the work supporting this sector goes largely unseen by members, eg, administering the Qualified Persons scheme. If Mr How would like to make contact with me, I will be happy to discuss his comments with him personally.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (CPD)