PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

	The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 270 No 7235 p189-190 8 February 2003	This page Reprint Photocopy
		PDF* 90K

Letters

  OFT report
  Locum pharmacy
  Hospital pharmacy
  Dispensing
  Heart disease
  The Profession
  The Society
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

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

The Society

Society's role in ricin story

There should be separate bodies

Will branch funding be complicated?

Branch network is needed

Society's role in ricin story

From Mr M. W. Jackson, MRPharmS

In early January, whether by listening to the radio or viewing the television, I was bombarded with information about ricin, a product well known to pharmacists who have studied pharmacognosy.

There have been many interviewees speaking on this toxic substance but no pharmacologist or pharmacognosist. Pharmacists qualifying in the 1950s, as I did, studied the extraction of Ol Ricini from castor seeds and knew about the existence of ricin left in the cake after the oil had been expressed. Why was a pharmacognosist not chosen to input this knowledge to the public in greater detail than the "experts" on radio and television.

The answer is, I am sure, that the news media does not know of the existence of qualified opinion. Unfortunately, they regard the pharmacist as the chemist, meaning a corner shop or working in a supermarket.

I regard this as a failure of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's public relations department to develop a liaison with the news media, because unless it does, the public will only regard the pharmacist as the person who counts.

Maurice Jackson
Brent Knoll, Somerset

JEAN-PIERRE MOSER, head of public relations and membership, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

When the story in question arose, the Society's press office was able to direct the media to Professor Tony Moffat, the Society's chief scientist, for information and interview. He was interviewed by Time Magazine, BBC Radio Wales and BBC Radio Cambridgeshire. In addition, researchers from both GMTV and Radio 4's Today programme spoke to Professor Moffat.

The Society's PR unit works to inform journalists of the expert knowledge that pharmacists hold and to provide comments and spokespeople on appropriate issues. The decision whether to feature the Society's comment or to broadcast interviews with Society's spokespeople lies with the editors.

There should be separate bodies

From Ms R. L. Kloss, and others

We believe that the current plans for the modernisation of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society do not allow for the representation of the interests of pharmacists, and there should be a separate body, which does not have a regulatory function, for this specific purpose.

Rachel Kloss
Preregistration Trainee
Wrexham Maelor Hospital,
and 29 other preregistration trainees

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

There is no reason why the Society's modernisation programme should not allow it to continue, or even increase, its existing representational function of acting as an advocate for the profession and bringing influence to bear on any issue that affects the profession's ability to deliver a safe, high quality service.

However, the Society is not a trade union. It does not and cannot represent pharmacists' individual or sectoral commercial interests. This would bring the Society into conflict with the public interest. This is the situation now: the modernisation programme will not alter this.

There is currently no organisation open to all pharmacists that can represent their interests without qualification. This remains a significant gap which the Society is not in a position to fill. It is not clear to what extent others within pharmacy may be interested in taking this forward.

Will branch funding be complicated?

From Mr W. T. Brookes, MRPharmS

The letter from members of the Slough branch committee (PJ, 25 January, p117) about sponsorship and the new branch funding formula underlines the points I made in my letter on this subject (PJ, 18 January, p82). The new system, by bringing sponsorship monies into the £1,000 reserve limit, will effectively penalise branches like Slough that, by actively seeking sponsorship and managing their accounts in a responsible way, have built up a healthy reserve. This also applies to equipment reserves built up by prudent branches for items needed to carry out branch business more efficiently.

The brevity of Jean-Pierre Moser's reply to my letter on these points is equalled only by its lack of content and confirms my fears about the new system. The process should be simple and effective and provide branches with the funds needed to work on behalf of their members. Instead it looks like being complicated and bureaucratic, run from the centre, not addressing the real needs of branches and penalising those whose hard work provides additional resources from non-Society sources.

W. T. Brookes
Stoke-on-Trent

Branch network is needed

From Mr G. A. Largue, MRPharmS

A letter dated 7 October 2002 was sent to all branch secretaries informing them that there was to be a change in the way the branches were to be funded. That letter also informed us that the proposals would be discussed at the branch secretaries meeting on 16 October 2002. At that meeting it became clear that the proposals were already in place and that there was no way that the decision would be reversed. These proposals were a cut in the basic branch grant and branches would be able to apply for extra funding if necessary.

More recently, branch secretaries and treasurers received a mailing informing us how the new system would work. The basic branch grant would be paid in August along with any extra funding that was applied for and authorised by the membership unit. The only problem with applying for the extra funding is that applications for this money have a closing date of 25 April 2003. The application form for extra funding asks for a brief description of each activity for which extra funding is required and also for a copy of a branch programme to be attached. I would like to ask how many branch secretaries or committees will have a full programme for 2003–04 available in April 2003? I would say few, if any.

An accompanying form tells us of the criteria that any meetings should meet to be eligible for this extra funding, one of which is, "Will the meeting be of a priority subject (eg, skill mix, supervision etc)?" How can branches know in April 2003 if they are going to need a meeting in February 2004 that covers a so-called priority topic? Who decides what a priority topic is, Lambeth or the branch members?

What I can see happening next year is the Council informing us that not all of the branch funding has been used therefore it will be cut yet again. Is this a roundabout way slowly to reduce branch funding, until the branch network is no longer viable?

I believe the Council is trying to run down the branch network at a time when it is most needed with modernisation and the Office of Fair Trading report, both being big issues at present.

Gordon Largue
Secretary
Moray and Banff Branch,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

JEAN-PIERRE MOSER, head of public relations and membership, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

When taking its decision in December 2002 to change the way branches are funded, the Council reaffirmed its commitment to branches and regions. It is hoped that the new funding arrangements will help the network develop to meet the needs of the profession at local level. The Council has the responsibility of ensuring the best use of the Society's resources. In June 2002, it was found that nearly £200,000 was already being held across all branch accounts before the grant payments for 2002–03 were made.

Under the new system, all branches will receive a core grant in July. They can also apply for funding from the Society, of up to £250, to send first-time attendees to the British Pharmaceutical Conference and are entitled to have the expenses of up to two branch speakers paid for from central Society funds.

In addition, there will be extra funding available to support branch activities but this will be only made available to branches with less than £1,000 in their accounts as of 31 March 2003. The reason for this is that some branches have accrued considerable balances — in several cases, over £5,000 — which remain unspent while other branches struggle to fund their programmes. We are certainly not seeking to penalise branches that have built up large balances over the years but we do want to encourage them to use this money to support an active and engaging programme for their members.

In January, all branch secretaries were sent supporting documentation to help them plan for the changes. We are asking that applications for the extra funding be supported by a brief description of the planned activity together with the objectives of the meeting. However, we realise that this might not be possible in terms of the planning cycle so our guidance says that an outline proposal (eg, without confirmed speakers) is also acceptable. Proposals for extra funding should also reflect the Society's remit as a regulatory and professional body.

Any branch officers who feel they may encounter major problems as a result of these changes have been invited to contact the Society's membership unit.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The Profession)
Next Topic (The Journal)