|
Concordance
Law and Ethics
Out of hours
Ask about medicines
Ramadan
Needle exchange
Specials
Ramipril
Medication errors
Preregistration exam
The Charter
The Profession
Letters to the Editor
|
The Charter
Without members, there would be no profession
From Mr H. Littler, MRPharmS
To agree the proposed amendment to the Royal Charter referred to in your
recent editorial (PJ, 18 October, p532), incorporating the words “interests
of the profession of pharmacy” would be a bold step, possibly with
unforeseen results. Perhaps it would be wise to bear in mind the law
of unintended consequences.
If, as I believe, it represents an attempt to overcome the difficulties
caused by previous definitions of who or what the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society should protect, would it not be far simpler and possibly safer
just to alter the definition? Surely something along the lines of “members
in the exercise of the profession of pharmacy” would suffice.
It is inconceivable that any present or future role of pharmacists would
be so remote from what is considered to be the practice of pharmacy as
not to be covered by such a definition. Since the Royal Charter is enabling
rather than prescriptive, the Society would not be obliged to do anything
considered to be outside its remit.
The pharmacy profession, like any other profession, is not an abstract
concept. It comprises members. Without members there would be no profession.
It follows that to protect the interests of its members — not necessarily
any individual member — is to protect the interests of the profession.
Henry Littler
Wigan, Lancashire
We still have not got it right
From Mr J. G. Iles, FRPharmS
It disturbs me that the old object “to safeguard ... the interests of
members” is dropped from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s proposed
Charter. If the Council wishes to add a new object at 2(3) “to safeguard,
maintain the honour, and promote the effectiveness and interests of the profession
of pharmacy”, that is fine. But the old object, to look after its members’ interests,
should remain. These objects are compatible; there is no reason to discard the
original.
The existing Charter also has as one of its objects: “To provide relief
for distressed persons”, and there follows a list of such persons. This
object has been dropped from the revised Charter, but the power “to maintain
any charitable or benevolent trusts for the relief of poverty or distress amongst
members or former members or their dependants or students of the Society” remains.
It is clearly stated that a power can only be exercised in “furtherance
of the objects, and not otherwise”. It follows that the power “to
provide relief for distressed persons” must be included in the objects.
John G. Iles
London N2
| |
ANN LEWIS (Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society)
replies:
The wording of object 2(3) in the revised draft Charter
has been altered from that in the current Charter so as to remove
ambiguity and confusion within the Charter objects. The revised
wording makes clear that the Society’s legitimate focus is the profession
as a whole. The Society promotes pharmacy’s contribution to
health and aims to ensure that the voice of the profession is heard
wherever policy relevant to pharmacy is made or implemented, but
it cannot represent or champion the interests of any individual member
or group of members, a role that some have inferred from the current
Charter object. Neither can the Society promote the profession’s
interest if that is in conflict with the wider public benefit. This
is not a change; it reflects the current situation, which the Council
is seeking to make clearer in the revised Charter. It would not make
sense to include both the 1953 object and the new wording in the
Charter. This would increase the confusion that the Council is seeking
to remove.
On the question of benevolence, it is right that the Society must
act within the broad scope of its Charter objects. This does not
mean that every activity
the Society proposes to undertake should be mentioned in the objects. The Society’s
benevolent functions are compatible with the objects in the revised draft Charter
and the Council fully intends that these functions should continue under these
objects and powers. |
Please respond to the consultation
From Mr A. Tanna, FRPharmS
In response to the letter from Hassan Argomandkhah (PJ, 18 October, p544),
I agree that a motion that the Council should hold a referendum of the
membership to establish the level of support after producing a revised
draft Charter was carried unanimously by those present at the special
general meeting held in June. In The Pharmaceutical Journal (25 October,
p570), Mr Argomandkhah asked the membership to support his petition
to compel the Society to hold a referendum. I do not disagree with the sentiments
of the motion which was passed at the SGM but my concern is what question
the referendum would ask. A simple yes or no would do no justice to the
range of articles which were discussed by the Council at the September
Council meeting before the new revised draft charter went out to the
membership.
I would like to remind the membership that Council members were given
sufficient time to discuss the new revised draft Charter at the September
Council meeting in open public debate before it went out to seek the
views of the entire membership.
If pharmacists do not wish their democratic rights as ordinary members
of the Society to be eroded then they must send their comments to the
Society by 14 November. I appreciate the concern expressed by Mark
Walker (PJ, 25 October, p579) that the consultation gives members a relatively
short time in which to send their feedback and therefore it will be impossible
for regions and branches to consult their members and give a considered
response. But pharmacists should do whatever it takes to respond to the
consultation. This will help the Council to arrive at its final decision
on the new revised draft Charter at the December Council meeting. The
Council will then have further discussions about whether to alter or
adjust any articles in light of the feedback.
Ashwin Tanna
Member of Council,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.