The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7242 p439
29 March 2003
PDF* 80K
|
|
The Pharmaceutical Journal |
|
|
PDF* 80K |
|
The new Charter
|
CPDThe profession will be poorerFrom Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS Bruce Rhodes expresses so elegantly (PJ, 22 March, p400) what many of us think about suggestions that anyone no longer practising should be removed from the Register. I would also take issue with those who would like to take away the right to use the title of pharmacist. Mr Rhodes and many others, although no longer in practice, are still active in the profession and I believe contribute much to its wellbeing. Take away such activists and the profession will be all the poorer. Incidentally, am I no longer to be allowed to use the letters FRPharmS? I note that applicants to be members of the panel of fellows "must still be active in the profession". If that debars those like, for example, Bruce Rhodes, it precludes a large number who would be invaluable to the panel. Martyrdom holds little attraction for me but I, too, intend to carry my title to the grave. W. T. Brookes A comparison with the legal professionFrom Mr J. A. Tweed, MRPharmS With regard to the use of the title "pharmacist", it may be interesting to compare the situation in the legal profession and use of the title "solicitor". Having been registered as a solicitor with the Law Society one needs a "practising certificate", renewable every year, in order to practise, as well as performing 16 hours of "continuing professional development". If, for some reason, one does not take out the certificate then one does not cease to be a solicitor, although one cannot practise. Similarly, one should not cease to be a pharmacist, having put so much work into qualifying, just because one does not wish to practise actively. J. A. Tweed |
|||
|
Send your letter to The Editor |
Previous Topic (Prescription charges) |
Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs Classifieds | Site Map | Contact us
