The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7229 p886-887
21/28 December 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 70K

  Period-of-treatment fee
  Patient packs
  Community pharmacy
  Veterinary medicines
  CPD
  The Society
  GI disorders

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Changes would devalue the register

From Dr J. A. Hunt, FRPharmS

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has just announced that it proposes to alter the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists by suppressing registered addresses so as to show the "postal town" only (PJ, 7 December, p825). I checked in my local reference library and found that all significant professions include full addresses in their current registers. Indeed, the Medical Directory, although this is not the official medical register, includes both home and business addresses, appointments and e-mail addresses. Why should we have a register which is inadequate and of minimal value in comparison with those of other health professions?

The registers are a valuable source of information. They make it possible for the adult life of any past pharmacist to be traced with great accuracy for reasons of historical research, genealogy or local history. The uninformative register now proposed would be of little value to future researchers.

The argument reported in The Journal (ibid, p796), that some 8 per cent of members choose to give their business rather than home addresses, is not sustainable. Why should they not do so if they prefer to keep such items as The Journal and official notices at their place of work?

What matters is that the information is accurate, and omitting the address is not likely to increase the accuracy of submissions. As far as urgent or essential contacts with members are concerned, such enquiries are normally made during business hours, when a business address is likely to be more advantageous than a private address.

Those who do not wish addresses to be disclosed because of "junk mail" concerns have only to contact the Mailing Preference Service by letter or telephone and ask for unsolicited mail to be suspended (contact Freepost 22, London W1E 7EZ, or telephone 0845 703 4599).

If people have a particular reason, such as security, for requiring non-disclosure of address, surely it would be possible to "asterisk" the entry with "address on application to the Registrar" and restrict such information to bona fide enquirers. This would deal with the problem without the destruction of a valuable reference source and without giving the impression that, once again, services to the members are being reduced in a trend to make the Society a bureaucratic supervisory body rather than a membership organisation.

I hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that other members will join me in asking for this proposal to be withdrawn.

J. A. Hunt
Weymouth, Dorset

Can a modernised Council promote the profession?

From Mr S. W. F. Holloway

May I, as a lay person with some knowledge of the history of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, comment on the reply that Ann Lewis, the current Secretary and Registrar, gave to the letter you published from Mark Koziol (PJ, 16 November, p712)? It must be reassuring for members of the Society to know that all decisions on the future direction and constitution of the Society will be made by the Council and not by unelected officials or ad hoc bodies like the modernisation steering group. It is, of course, the 1953 Charter which empowers the Council "to direct and manage the affairs of the Society." Hence the composition of the Council is crucial for the functioning of the Society. If 30 per cent or more of its membership were to consist of lay persons, the Council would lose the ability to fulfil its obligation under the Charter to serve the public interest by safeguarding and promoting the interests of the pharmaceutical profession. The wilful destruction of its representative and protective role would be tantamount to handing the Society over to the Department of Health. Any government could then ride rough-shod over the whole profession.

If the recent decision to increase lay membership of the Council to between 30 and 40 per cent were to be implemented, it would constitute a severe dislocation in the development of the Society. More than 160 years of labour devoted to furthering the public interest by raising the educational, social and economic status of pharmacists would be placed in jeopardy. In view of the historical significance and future implications of this decision, is it not astonishing that the current holder of the post of Secretary and Registrar should consider it appropriate that such a profound alteration to the Society should be brought about by a Section 60 Order? Does anyone believe that officers of the Royal College of Physicians or the Royal College of Surgeons would have recourse to Section 60 Orders in comparable circumstances? The Society's Royal Charter contains its own provisions to enable the Council to change it in ways that truly reflect the views of the members. It requires that any change proposed by the Council must be confirmed by a majority of three-quarters of the members attending and voting at a special general meeting. This is not only the indisputably legal method of changing the Charter, it is also the only honourable way. There is no need to go on bended knee to the Minister of Health to get him to co-operate in forcing through changes that may be against the wishes of the members of the Society. There already exists within the provisions of the Charter a method of bringing about change which is open, democratic, subject to public scrutiny, and fully respectful of the traditions and values enshrined in the Charter. To ensure that this method is followed, the Secretary and Registrar should have already made the arrangements for a special general meeting to enable the members to have their say and to determine their own future.

S. W. F. Holloway
Leicester

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (CPD)
Next Topic (GI Disorders)