Collective interests or the sum of its parts?
An early draft for the supplemental Charter that was granted in 1953 stated that “... ‘the protection of persons carrying on business as chemists and druggists’ to be replaced by an object embracing the maintenance of the honour and promotion of the interests of the pharmaceutical profession.” (PJ , 27 September 1947, p226).
This was proposed because it was considered that “the business
of chemists and druggists” was too narrow. It is not clear from
the records when the phrase “promote the interests of the members
in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy” was substituted
for “pharmaceutical profession” although the debate recorded
at the time suggests that the change was made to distinguish pharmacists
on the register from persons who happened to have a pharmacy degree
but who were not registered.
Now, following consultations over the past few months, matters have,
in some senses, turned full circle. Four new objects are proposed for
the revised draft Royal Charter (see centre pull-out section for full
details). The third object of the 1953 Charter missing from the first
draft (PJ, 5 July, centre pull-out section (PDF 160K)) has been reinstated but amended: “to
safeguard, maintain the honour, and promote the effectiveness and interests
of the profession of pharmacy” — echoing the 1947 draft.
Does this revised object denote “progress” or is it “the
end of life as we know it”?
The majority of Council today believes it signals progress. For the first
time it would make clear that the Society acts for pharmacy as a whole
and not for individuals. It would also enable future Councils to protect
the profession of pharmacy in a much broader way than currently. This,
so the argument goes, is likely to become more significant in the future
as pharmacists take up new roles and responsibilities.
The opposite argument is that the new object sounds the death knell to
the idea of the Society as a membership organisation; that without explicit
mention of members in the objects, the Society cannot represent their
interests.
So the Society has evolved from protecting the narrow business interests
of chemists and druggists, to promoting the interests of members on the
Society’s register and now, it is proposed, promoting the effectiveness
and interests of the profession of pharmacy.
Are 21st century pharmacists better served by an organisation that represents
their collective interests as a whole, or do they believe their professional
interests can only be served by an organisation that considers their
interests to be the sum of individuals’ sectoral interests?
Back to Top
|
