|
Modernisation
Devolution
Registration exam
Concordance
Law and Ethics
Dermatix gel
Letters to the Editor
|
Modernisation
Ambiguity and confusion seems to lie in current leadership
From Mr S. W. F. Holloway
Members’ legitimate concerns about the proposed new Charter deserve
more considered responses from both the President and the Secretary and
Registrar than those published The Journal of 1 November (p603 and p614).
Ann Lewis asserts (incorrectly) that the Society “cannot represent
or champion the interests of any individual member or group of members” while
Dr Gill Hawksworth states (correctly) that “we have taken action
in the past that has been in pharmacists’ interests or has benefited
a particular sector of the profession”. The “ambiguity and
confusion” which Miss Lewis maintains she finds in the wording
of the current Charter seems to reside instead in the thinking of the
current leadership. Certainly none of her predecessors had any doubt
that their role was, in the words of Sir Hugh Linstead, to “keep
the Society as the body which was created by Royal Charter — a
professional society of individual professional members”. The secretary
and registrar in 1962, F. W. Adams, declared that “the Society’s
position was that it was a body of individual pharmacists, and so long
as its activities were directed to benefiting the person who held the
qualification, then of course it could and should act if members wanted
it to do so”. In 1981, Desmond Lewis repeated this view, but added
the proviso that the Society’s protection could not extend to companies
created by members. Anyone familiar with the Society’s history
could cite examples of it acting in defence of hospital and prison pharmacists,
pharmacists in the armed services, as well as those practising in the
community.
Those actions, of course, were taken, as Dr Hawksworth points out, because
they were also in the wider public interest. To have acted otherwise
would have been to side with the devil and all his works. Unfortunately,
acting in the public interest has brought the Society into conflict with
others who also sincerely believed they were acting in the public interest,
eg, other health professions and government departments. Even when the
dust of battle has settled, historians, with the benefit of hindsight,
have difficulty in deciding which sides and which actions were, in fact,
in the interests of the public. Yet the Society’s Council, acting
under the current charter and with only three lay members in a total
of 24, managed successfully both to defend the interests of its members
and to act in the interests of the general public. Why, then, is a new
Charter needed?
Sydney Holloway
Leicester
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
There is no disagreement between my comments and those
made by the President. It is entirely acceptable for the Society
to act
in ways that promote pharmacists’ interests but only if,
and to the extent that, such action is consistent with the wider
public
interest. As Sydney Holloway points out, to do otherwise would
not be acceptable. Similarly, there is nothing to stop the Society
from
promoting the contribution to health made by a particular sector
of the profession or from undertaking work which is of greatest
benefit in one sector, provided that this is in keeping with overall
priorities
and the interests of the public and profession. However, the Society
cannot champion one sector of the profession at the expense of,
or in preference to, another. For example, if the Society were
asked
to describe how pharmacy could contribute to a new health service,
its response would be based on the skills, knowledge and experience
that pharmacy could bring to that service, not on promoting the
potential input of any particular sector. Other bodies exist to
promote sectoral
interests within pharmacy.
What is in the public interest will always be a matter of judgement.
For each issue, the Council has to consider the views of stakeholders,
look at the evidence
and information available, and decide on the course of action that is best
overall. The Society’s view of the public interest may not
always coincide with that of the government of the day. The Society
has shown that it can stand up
for the wider non-political public interest, and there is no reason why it
should not continue to do so.
The Charter provides autonomy and flexibility. If the Charter were
not updated, the reform programme would be implemented solely through
legislation. This would
take precedence over the Charter, which would be effectively over-written.
It means that, unlike other health professional regulators, we
are not restricted
to the functions set out in our legislation. To retain these benefits, we need
to ensure that the Charter is updated alongside the legislation, as it was
in 1953 in the time of F. W. Adams when new legislation which became
the Pharmacy
Act 1954 was before Parliament. Hence, the Council has decided to seek a new
Charter for the Society.
The Society can and will continue to act as the professional development and
leadership body for pharmacy. |
We should trust the Council to make decisions
From Mr A. Nathan, FRPharmS
I think I can understand why the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council is unwilling to hold a referendum on the proposed new Charter,
as has been advocated by some of your recent correspondents.
As the proportion of the membership voting in the annual Council elections
indicates, the large majority — about 80 per cent — appear
to have no interest in the Society and how it is run. The extremely
small number of members who responded to the first consultation on the Charter — 430,
less than one per cent of the membership (PJ, 13 September, pp349–51) — indicates
that even fewer have any interest in or concern about the new Charter.
I have no doubt that the large majority of those who did respond were
opposed to or had reservations about the proposals. On the other hand,
the large majority of the 20 per cent or so of members who do appear
to take some interest in the Society’s affairs probably approved
the Charter proposals but were either not motivated or did not feel it
necessary to express their support. It is a well-known phenomenon that
opponents to proposals in any sphere of representation or governance
are much more active and vocal than those in favour. I believe that if
a referendum were held on the Charter there would be a low response similar
to that for the consultation, with those opposed in the majority.
As a democrat I would not wish to see the future of the Society decided
by the views of a tiny minority of the profession. Members get the opportunity
each year to vote for the Council, and it must be assumed that those
elected are those that the pharmaceutical electorate believe will best
represent their interests. Having given them our vote of confidence to
put them in office, we should then trust them to take decisions in our
best interests, as I am sure that they strive to do.
Alan Nathan
London N21
SOS Council members did not call for a referendum
From Mr A. J. Burr, MRPharmS
At the risk of prolonging an already tired line of argument, I wish to
set the record straight on my
response (PJ, 25 October, p578) to Graham
Phillips’s earlier letter (PJ, 18 October, p545). He asked the
question whether there was any significance in the fact that the “Fit
for the future” paper on professional leadership and development
did not contain the word “representation”. The answer was
simply “No” but this clearly did not satisfy the Save Our
Society spin doctors who appear eager to sink, not save, the Society.
The whole point of the new Charter is to underpin and protect the Society’s
representational role, a point that Mr Phillips appears continually to
fail to grasp. The Council is committed to taking the Society forward
as a first rate professional leadership and development body, as well
as a first rate regulator. And that is what the majority of the members
want, too. There may be differing views about the structures and framework
that we need to achieve this but it is simply not right to claim that
the Council is in any way seeking to reduce the Society’s professional
functions. In fact, as we have stated time and again, we intend to increase
these aspects of the Society’s work.
Secondly, regarding the letter from Douglas
Simpson (PJ, 8 November,
p642) together with the section from Council proceedings quoted. Nicholas
Wood was keen to ensure the right checks and balances were in place in
the revised Charter, as were the rest of the Council. This was not a
discussion about the specific issue that the special general meeting
wanted a referendum. One would have expected those who had been elected
to the Council on the SOS ticket to have driven this point home. While
speaking in support of Mr Wood, Mr Simpson made a passing remark regarding
the referendum issue but his comment was in the wider context of consultation
with the membership and Privy Council on “big sea changes”,
which would include prescribing, mandatory continuing professional development
and supervision. At no time did any SOS Council member formally call
for a referendum.
Andrew J. Burr
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
Change should be transparent
From Mr M. K. Astbury, MRPharmS
Regarding the new Article 2(3) in the revised draft Royal Charter — the
wording gives the Royal Pharmaceutical Society a strong, impartial position
from which to promote the profession of pharmacy to other bodies.
This stronger position does however come at a cost: in extreme circumstances
the profession of pharmacy could be promoted to the detriment of pharmacists.
The original wording “promoting of the interests of members (ie,
pharmacists) in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy” only
allows the promotion of the profession of pharmacy if it is in the interests
of the public and pharmacists.
This is therefore a massive change and whether for the good or bad should
take place with transparency. It is wrong to try to say the original
article 4(3) is simply being carried forward (revised draft Royal Charter,
insert in PJ, 18 October, p3 (PDF 100K)).
Martin Astbury
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Why democracy is at stake
From Mr H. Argomandkhah, MRPharmS
In reply to my letter (PJ, 8 November, p644), Ann Lewis writes that the
referendum was mentioned during the debate on the new draft Charter at
the October Council meeting. However the Council felt that this would
be “an inadequate method of ascertaining pharmacists’ views
on the revised draft
Charter”.
Is the Council suggesting that the membership is not intelligent enough
to form a “yes or no” conclusion following a balanced debate
within the profession? If so, perhaps we should extend the argument to
the
complexities of the new National Health Service pharmacy contract (upon
which, significantly, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
is holding not one referendum, but two). Perhaps, following Miss Lewis’s
logic, we should also do away with the Council elections — after
all, can the intellectually impoverished pharmacy profession safely be
entrusted to determine the leadership?
The many pharmacists who have so far put their names forward in support
of my petition are united in their demand to have the final say on the
final document. This is totally different to “consultations” on “drafts” or “revised
drafts”. The final document will be the one agreed by the Council,
and before it is sent to the Privy Council for approval. In short, a
referendum is much more than a so-called “consultation”,
especially the variety we have been offered thus far. The membership
is far more intelligent than to fall for such arguments from those sitting
so nervously in their ivory towers.
There are many other ways in which a proper referendum might be conducted,
and I will be happy to discuss the details with the Council once they
have agreed to grant the membership their democratic rights.
The real issue at stake here is democracy. Members wishing to put their
name forward in support of the petition to compel the Council to hold
a referendum on the new Charter, have until 1 December and I urge them
to do so.
Simply write “I support the call for a referendum” followed
by your name and registration number, then either e-mail it
to argomandkhah@blueyonder.co.uk or text it to 07751 892 777.
Hassan Argomandkhah
Liverpool
Lack of candour in consultation process
From Mr D. N. Sharpe, FRPharmS
The Secretary and Registrar offered a commentary on my
letter published
last week (PJ, 8 November, p642), somewhat longer than the letter itself,
presumably to reassure members that the issues I raised need not concern
them. It is worthwhile analysing her response to the issues I identified
concerning the proposed draft Charter.
Issue 1 The Byelaws, the process for allowing members to comment, and
the requirement for the Privy Council consent, all disappear, replaced
by regulations that may be made by the Council without consultation,
by a simple majority. Miss Lewis agrees, but explains: “It is unlikely
that the Privy Council will want to approve the whole range of changes
in the future.”
Issue 2 Twelve of the 29 members of the new Council will be non-pharmacists
so could pass a resolution if supported by only three pharmacist Council
members. Miss Lewis agrees.
Issue 3 The Council by resolution could agree to widen membership of
the Society to include non-pharmacists, provided the Privy Council consents.
Miss Lewis agrees, but says there “are no plans” to do this
and also, comfortingly, that the Privy Council “would expect the
Society to seek members’ views first”.
Issue 4 The duty in the objects clause to protect the interests of members
in their practice of the profession, proposed removal of which has been
so strongly opposed, has been replaced by a very different duty. Miss
Lewis equivocates here, appearing to suggest that the present duty is
bad. It is not.
Issue 5 The office of President has disappeared from the Charter. It
has, but Miss Lewis says, correctly, that the proposed Charter provides
for appointment of officers. Indeed it does, but it does not specify
them. Miss Lewis canvasses the theoretical possibility of wanting two
vice-presidents. Equally theoretically possible would be no president.
None of these fundamental issues was addressed in the consultation paper.
I conclude, and I think most members would conclude, that there has been
a lack of candour in the consultation process.
Could it be that the Council is seeking to get this thoroughly bad Charter
agreed before many of its members would risk losing their seats to Save
Our Society candidates next spring?
If this Charter is approved, the professional body will be mortally wounded
and it will be too late for new Council members to revive it.
David Sharpe
London NW11
Society should split in two
From Mr C. O. Agomo, MRPharmS
I have followed some of the recent developments in pharmacy and would
like to suggest a simple way out. Both the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
and its members have the interest of the profession at heart, only the
former is overwhelmed with the need to regulate while the latter is more
interested in ensuring that the professional needs of the members are
not ignored.
I am, therefore, suggesting that to satisfy both interests the simple
solution is to split the Society into two bodies, with the regulatory
body made compulsory and the professional body becoming voluntary.
This model has not only been proved to work for over a hundred years,
it is widely practised in most countries. We are also aware that recently,
this two-body system
was adopted by the Law Society in the United Kingdom
and will shortly be adopted by the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Society
(PJ, 18 October, p539).
Finally, I find it difficult to accept the fact that splitting the Society
would be the most devastating thing to happen to the profession. Rather,
it would move the profession forward as the separate bodies would concentrate
better in their separate roles. All that is required is to work closely
with the other professions to see how they operate and to raise slightly
the membership fee to fund these separate, but independent bodies.
It seems to me the only way forward — let’s give it a try.
Chijioke O. Agomo
London N7 |
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.