The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7246 p570
26 April 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 90K

  New Charter
  Industry and Journals
  Homoeopathy
  Low-dose aspirin
  Remuneration
  Drug addiction
  CPD
  Council election

Letters to the Editor

New Charter

Pharmacists at the mercy of government appointees

From Mr S. W. F. Holloway

Helen Remington's brief article (PJ, 19 April, p558) reminded me of my childhood catechism: a series of dogmatic answers to stereotyped questions. With great authority she delivers judgement upon issues which others find fraught with uncertainty and difficulty. Does modernisation mean that representation will be put on the back burner? Not at all, she replies. There is no reason why having a new charter should cause the balance of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's activities to shift. The Society can only benefit from increased lay input. The impact on the Society of charitable status would be entirely beneficial. The italics, but not the assurances, are mine. The lady doth attest too much, methinks.

Are matters that cut and dried? Let me rehearse a few words of dissent. Mrs Remington asserts that neither charitable status nor an increase in the proportion of non-pharmacist members of Council will alter the Society's ability "to protect the interests of members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy". Under the existing charter the pharmacist members of Council are elected by the profession; they represent the profession and are accountable to it. The lay members are appointed by the Government and hold office for as long as the Government decides. There is, therefore, a division built into the Council between those who represent the profession and those who represent the Government. In a parliamentary democracy, such as ours, the Government can legitimately claim to represent the general public. In turn, government appointees may claim to represent the public interest. This is presumably why Mrs Remington believes that increased lay input will enhance public confidence in the Council.

That may or may not be the case. What is certain is that increasing the proportion of lay members of Council will seriously impede the Council's ability to safeguard and promote the interests of pharmacists. During this period of rapid change within the National Health Service, the interests of pharmacists will inevitably come into conflict with those of other professions and the government. Who will defend pharmacists in the exercise of their profession? Will a modernised Council be fit for this purpose? The influence of the lay members will far outweigh their number. They will claim to speak in the public interest, while the elected members speak only for the profession. If the Society has charitable status, and if the new charter is replete with injunctions to promote the public interest, the authority of the lay members will be further enhanced and that of the pharmacist members correspondingly deflated. Doctors and nurses will have their professional associations (the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing) to defend them. Pharmacists will be left to the tender mercy of government appointees.

Sydney Holloway
Leicester

Might we see the development of a "chartered" pharmacist?

From Mr R. A. Wing, FRPharmS

The draft for the new proposed charter is a welcome first step and, although it requires further enhancement, it does provide possible flexibility for the profession in an era of continuing change not envisaged 50 years ago or earlier.

There have been various comments about the past or status quo situations, but these have not met the needs of a broad and changing pharmaceutical profession, which has moved away from a situation where community pharmacy undertakes all pharmaceutical activity — and even most of the training — into an era of major university departments, substantial research and development laboratories and complex manufacturing plants. These fulfil many traditional pharmaceutical roles and embrace traditional drugs, chemicals and biologicals as medicines. Many staff in these institutions, although practising these specialist pharmaceutical skills requiring high level qualifications in pharmaceutical disciplines, have not been allowed to participate as members of the professional society because of the rigid regulatory shroud placed over the registered pharmacist and pharmacy to permit membership.

This narrow and exclusive authority to practise "pharmacy" is only the authority to practise a select aspect of pharmacy and is increasingly viewed as too restrictive, particularly since several major retailers with "City" reputations to meet are seeking to take the major role in community and retail pharmacy and to dilute the pharmacist's exclusive right to practise. Already stores give "pharmacy graduate" badges to proclaim their wearers' status. Industry and hospital have long required technicians (many of whom are graduates) for this diverse profession and although the proposal to register technicians has merit it should not become a dilution, but a first step in recognising qualified diversity whereby a broader spectrum of appropriately qualified people in academia and industry can participate in and become affiliated to the professional society without becoming statutorily "registered pharmacists" under regulation. When lead staff in schools of pharmacy and the like cannot become participants in the Society, the question needs addressing and the proposal in the new charter allows these issues to be addressed.

The new charter could allow the development of a "chartered" pharmacist, where that is related to the function the pharmacist is recognised to fulfil, and might cover those who function in regulation and inspection, the profession's administration, quality assurance, manufacturing, information, prescribers, Qualified Persons and the like. The proper statutory regulation of retail stores and their staff would be recognised as only one, although a highly significant, function of this diverse profession.

The importance of the profession to the patient and to health care in the future can only be fulfilled in the broad context of its contribution, not from a narrow, backward-looking concept that no longer reflects the reality.

Ron Wing
Cottingham, East Yorkshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Industry and Journals)