The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7245 p545
19 April 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 75K

  New Charter
  Community pharmacy
  Pharmacist prescribing
  Qualified persons
  Drug misuse services
  Homoeopathy
  Dispensary design
  NPSA project
  Tuberculosis
  The Society
  CPD
  Titles

Letters to the Editor

New Charter

Why is there no draft object on members' interests?

From Mr R. Dickinson, FRPharmS

I have a major concern about the proposed "objects" of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society contained in the new draft Royal Charter, recently published (PDF 125K) by Council (PJ, 15 March, pull-out section).

I have no problem with the two objects included in the draft, ie, concerning:

(i) the advancement of knowledge of, and education in, pharmacy, and

(ii) the regulation of the pharmacy profession

What concerns me greatly is the omission of an object to mirror the object in the current Charter which states "to maintain the honour and safeguard and promote the interests of the members in the exercise of the profession of pharmacy", albeit with the addition of a reference to consistency with the public benefit.

The Society's document "Questions and answers on the Society's Charter" states that objects should be a succinct statement of purpose. I have always thought of them as the raison d'être of the Society. The document goes on to state that functions that support and derive from the objects, however important they are, should be stated in powers. That is where we find reference to promoting the competence and interests of the members in the exercise of the profession of pharmacy, ie, as a "power" and not an "object". A power need not be exercised whereas an object must be pursued.

This power does not "support or derive from" either of the two draft objects. Even if an alternative view is taken within Lambeth, it would not be a sustainable argument for the omission about which I complain. How many times have representatives of the Council maintained that the Society will continue to have both regulatory and professional representational roles? To remove the latter from the objects, while there is an object and a power related to regulation, suggests that while regulation is a purpose of the Society, the other role is not.

I maintain that the objects should cover all of the main purposes of the Society, and should do so explicitly. Contrary to the stated "good governance" intention of the draft, in this instance it is making implicit that which should be, and currently is, explicit.

This is such an important issue that the Council should explain now why there is no draft object on the promotion of the interests of the members in the exercise of the profession. At the time of a Council election, the members should know how each of the candidates stand on this issue.

Raymond Dickinson
Farnham, Surrey

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Community pharmacy)