The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7238 p303
1 March 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 90K

  OFT report
  Corporate pharmacy
  Supermarket pharmacy
  CPD
  Chloroform water
  Antipsychotics
  Advertising
  Pharmacist prescribing
  Dentistry
  APPG
  The Register
  Dispensing
  The Profession
  Leadership
  The Council
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Register

Are public being misled over title “pharmacist”?

From Mr K. M. Youings, MRPharmS

The protection of the public has to be important for any profession. Is there any evidence that the public are being misled over the title "pharmacist"? I have not seen any evidence published. I have seen a member struck off for not paying his fees, and by this, misleading the public, but that is a different case. If there is not a problem, why try to fix it?

How are the public going to be misled by me describing myself as a pharmacist even though I do not have patient contact? "Pharmacist" has been a restricted title at least since the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933. "Chemist" was a restricted title, too, but that did not stop thousands of people with degrees in chemistry calling themselves "chemists". It was the context in which people used the title that mattered, both practically and legally. Surely, if I as an "industrial pharmacist" describe myself as a "pharmacist" in circumstances that imply that I am fit to discuss details of a patient's medication in a pharmacy, then this should be a matter for the Statutory Committee as unprofessional conduct. The safeguards exist.

It seems to have been a principle in law that individuals' rights are not withdrawn when major changes occur. Two examples are that when veterinary surgeons had to be registered, the veterinarians who were less qualified were allowed to continue to practise. The Medicines Act recognises "qualified persons" who were doing the job previously to remain eligible to act as a qualified person under the transitional regulations. So cannot industrial or other pharmacists continue to call themselves "pharmacists" in appropriate circumstances?

If the above points are valid, why is there a need to split the register? If splitting the register is inevitable and the above points are seen as irrelevant, why cannot we use sensible titles like "industrial pharmacist", "quality control pharmacist", pharmacist/lawyer", "academic pharmacist", "veterinary pharmacist" and so on. The proposed choices have real problems: "emeritus" is appropriate for retired people of particular distinction, thus inappropriate for young industrial pharmacists, and so on. In all respects "inactive" is inappropriate.

Ever since I entered pharmacy 40 years ago, industrial pharmacy was seen as a good career. I cannot see that being the case in the future. For many years pharmacists not involved in community or hospital practice have believed that most of the Society's effort has been directed to those areas of practice, especially "retail". Those of us not in those fields have been excluded from much "further education" on which we have been assured on many occasions that the Council were giving serious consideration.

Is it any wonder that some of us question the need to remain on the register?

Michael Youings
Romford, Essex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (APPG)
Next Topic (Dispensing)