The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7240 p368
15 March 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 65K

  OFT report
  Community pharmacy
  Adverse reactions
  Oral health
  Workforce survey
  CPD
  The Society
  Homoeopathy

Letters to the Editor

The Society

The Society will become OFPharm in all but name

From Mr G. K. Benton, FRPharmS

Many of the issues have been aired before but the current proposal for compulsory continuing professional development, together with "modernisation", including registration of technicians, allowing non-members to sit on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council and the general dilution of the influence of pharmacists on the Council and its decisions, is yet a further example of the abdication of responsibilities under the Charter.

The case for continuing professional development is demonstrable. The case for monitored, assessed, inspected, league-tabled, compulsory CPD is not. Of course there will be a minority who do not attempt to keep up to date and the normal methods of control of competence within a profession are adequate to deal with that minority. Sadly, in the present political climate, that is not considered satisfactory. In my view, regulation is an epidemic disease.

The Society exists for the benefit of its members; public benefit, in my book, follows. The converse is not true.

For most of the period of my membership of the Society, I have regularly expressed the view that in continuing to act as agent of the Government in the exercise of its statutory role, the Society has been guilty of compromising its Charter responsibilities. There are advantages to the Society's management in compulsory membership, although the opinion sometimes quoted — that the Society gains influence in Government — has hardly ever been shown to be borne out in practice. Indeed, membership of the Society has been seen by some to be little more important than the price one has to pay for the right to practise. The proposals for modernisation are tantamount to the acceptance of that latter point of view. There is no point in retaining the authority of the regulating body when the regulating body is a puppet of the Government.

The conclusion that I draw is that the Society should cease to be the statutory authority. It is a function is has never adequately delivered in a number of areas outside pharmacy (dispensing doctor practices, veterinary supplies, pet stores, agricultural co-operatives and agricultural shows), where non-pharmacists have engaged in trade controlled by the pharmacy and poisons regulations. With increasing regulation of herbal medicines and dietary products highly likely, the inspectorate's area of competence grows ever smaller.

It would appear from the the Secretary and Registrar's response to the past presidents (PJ, 15 February, p231) that the Government is demanding ever greater representation within the the Society. In the end, we shall face a situation where, in all but name, the Society becomes "OFPharm": its responsibilities just as costly for its members; its authority and influence negligible. Hand it back to the Government! It is claimed to be in the public interest that changes are made. Let the Government make them and spread the cost over the area of benefit.

Gerald Benton
Horncastle, Lincolnshire

A narrow interpretation of the Society's role

From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS

I noted the response to my letter which was headed "How did the Society react?" (PJ, 15 February, p224). The response neatly, and probably inadvertently, made my point when it highlighted the fact that the contractors' bodies opinions received prominence in the media reports. These organisations represent only about 6,000 pharmacists; our Society represents the professional interests of around 45,000 pharmacists. I re-emphasise that implementation of the Office of Fair Trading recommendation will affect the lives of the majority of them to a greater or lesser extent no matter whether they practise in the community or in the managed service. Yet, on this matter, the Society's voice was, at best, muted.

It is the last sentence of the response which leaves me somewhat perplexed. It is axiomatic that any member of a liberal profession sets the interests of the client (the public, society — describe them how you will) in first place. This is such a fundamental responsibility of the profession that it is not always set out as a specific requirement by professional bodies. The response defines the role of our Society as being "to speak for the pharmacy profession in the interests of the public". Our Society has several roles but I cannot recall this narrow interpretation being set out in either Charter or statute, admirable though the sentiment may be.

Ian Caldwell
Larkhall, Lanarkshire

The Society can't afford to miss opportunities

From Mr P. J. McGorry, MRPharmS

I refer to Beverly Parkin's reply to my recent letter regarding the All Party Pharmacy Group meeting on the Office of Fair Trading report (PJ, 1 March, p302). I have the utmost respect for Dr Gillian Hawksworth and the valid point she made, but she did not let anyone know that she represented the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Many of us have a selection of professional "hats" to choose from: it is common practice to let others know which one is being used. Unfortunately this did not happen on this occasion.

The Society, as the only body to represent all of pharmacy, cannot afford to let these opportunities slip by, especially if it is to be taken seriously as the modernised regulator, and representative body, it says it wants to be.

Paul McGorry
Hull

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (CPD)
Next Topic (Homoeopathy)