The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7246 p573
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

CPD

Government and the Council are grossly over-reacting

From Mr M. A. Reynolds, MRPharmS

I find the term "inactive pharmacist" derogatory and offensive. I think that we are attempting to crack this particular soft nut with an expensive sledgehammer.

Can I suggest that the word "pharmacist" is qualified by another description if one is forced to undertake record keeping of meaningless "evidences" under the proposed mandatory continuing professional development scheme, eg, "community pharmacist". If not, then we should be called, simply, a "pharmacist". MRPharmS indicates registration.

Where does the CPD daily advancement within the "university of real life" fit into the picture? Is not CPD (or any other chosen words) the essence and raison d'être of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society itself?

We will always think of ourselves as qualified pharmacists regardless of whether we are members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society or not. Personally, I will always be a proud "PhC" but will not necessarily remain an "MRPharmS". Membership and regulation are getting unnecessarily confused.

Recent proclamations indicated that the Society is concerned and worried that it would lose control if the Government writes the rules on mandatory CPD under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999. But would this be the case? The Government also has the right to control standards within pharmacy premises under Section 66 of the Medicines Act 1968. The Government, however, has never introduced regulations, because subjective law is not good law and is therefore easily challenged. The newly proposed mandatory CPD requirements are less than exact to say the least and would appear to be even more subjective.

So what is the Society worried about?

I have now read (PJ, 12 April, p522) that the Society is agreeing to approach the Government formally for general powers for mandatory CPD under Section 60 (but no details were given). What has changed?

I believe the Government is grossly over-reacting and so, to my mind, is the present Council. Pharmacists in general have a proud public record. It ain't broke, so why fix it? Is it not time that the Society thought more about the members and less about itself.

Michael Reynolds
Christchurch, Dorset

What is the problem with titles?

From Mr S. P. Bullock, MRPharmS

Apropos the current discussion on titles etc, what on earth is wrong with "retired pharmacist" or "pharmacist (retired)" for those who have given their working lives to the profession? And for younger folk, surely, if they choose to practise as tinkers, tailors or whatever, then that is how they should describe themselves.

I practise part-time as a musician and, when the band I am in plays, I describe myself as such. The next morning I am a pharmacist again (assuming it is not a Saturday gig).

Sorry chaps, but I just do not see the problem here.

Steve Bullock
Barton under Needwood,
Staffordshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Drug addiction)
Next Topic (Council election)