The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7255 p886
28 June 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 100K

  Modernisation
  Technicians
  Omeprazole
  Paroxetine
  Drug tariff
  Penicillin
  Onlooker

Letters to the Editor

Modernisation

Council should act upon the views of the members

From Mr G. A. Miller, MRPharmS

I read with immense interest the report of the special general meeting held in London on 1 June (PJ, 7 June, pp802–807).

During the proposing speech for the motion "this meeting instructs the Council to arrange for a referendum of the entire membership to be held to establish the level of support for any proposed new Charter once the details of any such proposal(s) have been finalised," an important point was made that was not included in the PJ report.

Historically, the Council has set a precedent in changing policy based on the outcome of an SGM. The last time a majority of those members attending an SGM voted against Council policy was in 1989. Following this SGM, the Council of the time reversed policy that had previously been set, acting upon the views of the membership.

I hope that the current Council will follow this precedent, and act upon the views of the membership, which were clearly expressed at the first SGM of 2003.

Gavin Miller
London W6

Look to others to determine best way to proceed

From Mr A. P. Griffin, MRPharmS

As a pharmacist registered in both the United Kingdom and Australia, I wonder if the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has looked for inspiration as to its future composition and function in other countries that have similar systems of regulation and representation of the profession.

In the various states of Australia, regulation of the profession is usually handled by a government board comprising pharmacists, representatives of the major professional bodies, as well as industry, legal, government and consumer representatives. This board also deals with disciplinary matters, and usually has the stated aim of ensuring that the public interest is served by maintaining an extremely high standard of professional practice.

On a separate matter, representation of the profession is advanced by several bodies, representing either specific groups (ie, hospital pharmacists, pharmacy owners, etc), or the whole profession. This representation includes everything from publishing professional journals and continuing professional education to lobbying government and negotiating contracts.

Since these two functions are separated, members of a particular body may voice their disapproval with how their professional body represents them (or not, as the case may be), by declining to renew their membership, while remaining able to practise pharmacy. This results in each body (by and large) doing what its members want. One wonders how many pharmacists in the UK would financially support the Society if it were not necessary to do so to go to work each day. Is this one reason why control of our professional body may be wrested from us by non-pharmacists?

I would be interested (as may some fellow members) to learn of how the profession of pharmacy is regulated and represented in other countries with similar health-care systems. Perhaps by examining the way others handle these two very different and often contrary roles may we determine the best way to proceed.

Andrew Griffin
Bristol

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Technicians)