|
Dispensing
EpiPens
Pharmacy practice
Oxygen cylinders
Overseas registration
Statutory Committee
The branches
The Council
The Charter
Letters to the Editor
|
The Charter
Deep disquiet
From Mr N. L. Wood, FRPharmS
I must respond to two letters that appeared on 15 November (p676).
First, my old friend and colleague Alan
Nathan makes the point that quite small
numbers of pharmacists responded to the first consultation on the proposed
Charter. He asserts therefore that of the 20 per cent or so of members
who take an active part in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s affairs,
most probably approve of the Society’s current proposals. Furthermore,
he goes on to suggest that the electorate are perfectly capable of putting
into office those who will best represent their interests, a view with
which I can only concur. I am not normally prone to blowing my own trumpet,
but I do have to point out to him that in June of this year, I topped
the poll in the Council elections when 3,912 members voted for me on
a manifesto solely devoted to opposing much of the direction of the Society’s
modernisation process and the proposed Charter. I believe that such a
vote, along with the election of other Save Our Society campaign candidates
more than adequately demonstrates the current deep disquiet among the
membership and I shall continue to try to represent that.
Secondly, and at the risk of breaching protocol, I must inform Andrew
Burr that he should expect to see a motion, proposed by me, to hold a
ballot of the members’ views on the Charter on the agenda of the
December Council. This move is not in any way related to or in response
to his criticisms; rather it has been planned by me for some time to
coincide with the further consideration of the draft Charter.
Nicholas Wood
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Tired of being manipulated
From Mr P. Robinson, MRPharmS
Those who are so passionately complaining about the lack of a referendum
on modernisation should not forget some of the other major issues that
have been settled without one. I am still waiting for an official vote
on issues raised by the New Age consultation document of October 1995.
Since David Sharpe and the “Save Our Society” lobby have
been happy enough to support those New Age ideas through a process of
legislation, without any official ratification by the wider membership,
why should they be so disturbed when the same tactic is used again?
Ann Lewis says that a referendum on modernisation is not appropriate
because there is no simple “yes” or “no” decision
to be made. It seems to have escaped her understanding altogether that
some people might want to vote, not for a revised amendment to the proposed
new Charter, but for a rejection of any amendment to the original Charter
whatsoever. Nevertheless, the Council is “encouraging comments
on any aspect of the revised Charter” in order to promote “constructive
feedback”.
As past experience has clearly shown, opinions collected in consultations
are not binding on anybody and can be accepted or rejected regardless
of validity. In other words, in the absence of an official referendum,
the Council can do what it likes while at the same time appear to be
listening to people’s views. This is outrageous.
Those people who are tinkering with the professional lives of the rest
of us without our consent should know once and for all that we are tired
of being manipulated by a small number of people who have effectively
deprived the majority of any meaningful participation.
Peter Robinson
Leeds
Let the members be master of “our” Society
From Mr A. O. Bond, FRPharmS
I am getting tired of being insulted. Ann
Lewis, Secretary and Registrar,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society, in her footnote to the letter from Hassan
Argomandkhah (PJ, 8 November. p644) states that in any referendum
the members would need to vote “yes” or “no” to
the proposed Charter, and, if voting “no”, would not give
information to the Council.
By that time it would be too late to give information to the Council.
As with all debates or decisions within the profession it would be a
matter of: “New Charter with all the improvements or drawbacks,
that each voter may perceive — warts and all” — “Yes” or “No”.
Whatever Miss Lewis may think, the membership is quite capable of making
such a value judgement.
I believe that if they were to lose such a referendum the Council would
not resign. Some members might wish that they would, but I believe they
would not. So from their point of view what possible harm could there
be to having a referendum?
The reason I think that the Council would not resign lies in Alan
Nathan’s
letter (PJ, 15 November, p676), from which it might be inferred that
80 per cent of the membership could not care less: they are only members
because they need to be so registered in order to practise their profession.
As long as the Society does not interfere too much or lay too many regulatory
burdens on that 80 per cent they will stay as apathetic as Mr Nathan
appears to encourage them to be. Has he not thought that maybe, just
maybe, they have not voted because they have no confidence in any of
the candidates putting themselves forward for election? Or, if not in
the candidates, then in their ability to change anything for the benefit
of individual (voting) members?
We want to keep a Society, which since 1841 has supported us as individual
members and as a profession. We do not want a Society which will become
submerged in and an extension of Department of Health bureaucracy because
of some “touchy-feely” political philosophy that has only
been around since 1997.
If it is “our” Society then let the members be masters of
it. If it is just to be a bureaucracy then let the National Health Service
set up and fund its own “general pharmaceutical council” as
suggested by Chijioke Agomo (ibid, p677). Then, let the membership of
the Society be voluntary and watch the voting figures, of a smaller electorate,
improve.
Andrew Bond
Baltonsborough, Somerset
Reconsider seats for technicians on reformed Council
From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS
Since it is likely that the best way forward for any organisation is
to graft the desirable for the future on to the best of the past and
present, it was interesting to have the viewpoint of Sydney
Holloway,
an eminent and interested historian (PJ, 15 November, p675). Although
clinging to the outmoded prevents progress, there is no doubt that the
past can inform the future and can prevent errors — or have I got
the concept of inquiries such as Kennedy, Nolan and Shipman wrong?
A little glance at history might cause the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society to reconsider awarding two free seats on the Council to pharmacy
technicians. The Association of Pharmacy Technicians claims in its five-year
plan to be the professional body for technicians, as indeed it has every
right to do. Its membership is increasing although it is still far short
of the 30,000-plus figure that has has been bandied about in the PJ over
the past year.
Were I an officer of the association, I would be looking at two Council
seats gifted on the basis of a few thousand members and preparing arguments
for increasing the number of seats in line with an increasing number
of registrants. At the back of my mind would be a certain Tea Party in
Boston over 200 years ago and a phrase not unlike “no taxation
(registration fee) without representation”. At the same time I
would have my sight set on the draft Charter provision (para 7) which
allows the size of the Council to increase to 35 members. I might even
get ambitious and encourage my counterpart on the Association of Operating
Department Practitioners to seek seats of right on the councils of the
Royal Colleges of Surgeons and the General Medical Council. However,
in that regard, I would also buy an astral telescope in order to search
out a blue moon.
Speaking as a pharmacist, I can only say that the technicians I have
met over the years have impressed me, but they are not pharmacists and
hence have no place at our Council table or in our deliberations. Seats
of right on the Council will inevitably lead to conflicts of interest
and such conflict is unlikely to be in the public interest.
David Sharpe pointed out (ibid, p677) how perilously close pharmacists
can come to being outnumbered under the proposed charter. The inclusion
of technicians and possibly other health professionals within the Council
dramatically increases that possibility but does nothing to enhance the
public interest.
Ian Caldwell
Larkhall,
Lanarkshire
A radically changed position
From Mr J. Ferguson, FRPharmS
In his letter (PJ, 8 November, p642), David
Sharpe drew the attention
of members to the proposal of the Council to change, radically, one of
the Objects of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The current Supplemental
Charter requires the Society to “maintain the honour and safeguard
and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession
of pharmacy”. The proposal is that this should be replaced by an
Object “To safeguard, maintain the honour, and promote the effectiveness
and interests of the profession of pharmacy”. As Mr Sharpe correctly
points out, these are two quite different responsibilities.
In her response to this letter, in the same issue, the Secretary and
Registrar writes that the Society “cannot represent the interests
of any individual member or group of members, nor can it promote the
profession’s interest if that is in conflict with the wider public
benefit”. I agree completely with the second part of this statement.
Each relevant decision of the Council has to pass the Daily Mail test — if
it is critically examined in the public arena, will it be seen as being
in the public interest or could it be successfully challenged as serving
only the vested interests of pharmacists? I believe successive Councils
have striven to ensure that this test has always been passed.
If, however, the first part of the Secretary and Registrar’s statement
is correct, one might reasonably conclude from the facts, that the Society
has repeatedly acted outside the terms of the 1953 Supplemental Charter
since it was granted. I do not believe that to be so. I accept that only
in exceptional circumstances can the Society intervene on the part of
an individual pharmacist and, in the terms of the Jenkin judgment, never
on a matter of terms and conditions of service, where there is a dispute
between a pharmacist employer and a pharmacist employee. I would suggest,
however, that the Society has made representations on behalf of individual
pharmacists who have considered pressure was being exerted on them to
practise in a manner they considered would be unprofessional or unethical.
More important, however, is the question of representing the interests
of a group of members, if one considers that a “group” comprises,
say, hospital pharmacists, or community pharmacists in rural areas, or
community pharmacists generally, or even a small group such as military
pharmacists, always taking care to pass the Daily Mail test. For example,
I can recall at least two occasions when, as Secretary and Registrar,
together with the President and/or chairman of the Practice Committee,
we successfully made direct representations to health ministers, without
becoming involved in detailed negotiations, on the need to restructure
the career paths in hospital pharmacy to solve the problems then being
encountered in recruitment and retention; I also remember meetings with
the Ministry of Defence pressing for commissions for pharmacists in the
armed forces; and of course on many occasions over the years, as several
past presidents will confirm, the Society played a leading part in debates
on dispensing in rural areas, to prevent the extension of doctor dispensing.
I can even recall, through the Industrial Pharmacists Group, promoting
to major pharmaceutical companies, the benefits of employing pharmacists
in certain departments and suggesting they should adopt the same recruitment
policy as they did for medically qualified staff, by paying a salary
premium over other science graduates. The number of occasions on which
the Society has made representations on behalf of a group of members,
large or small, is, in fact, substantial. Indeed, nearly every response
to a government consultation document, Green Paper, White Paper or on
draft legislative proposals could reasonably be said to fall within this
category.
I cannot agree, therefore, with the suggestion that the proposed new
wording is “not something new” but merely aims to make the
long-standing position plain. The new wording, if adopted, would radically
change the position. It would have the effect of barring the Society
from representing the interests of groups of members, large or small,
however worthy their cause. The Society, it is said, could only promote
the “interests of the profession” as a whole. This would
undoubtedly be a very significant reduction in its “representational
role” rather than giving its role “ greater clarity and credibility.” In
this regard, and many others, the proposed new Charter is certainly not
a tidying up exercise.
John Ferguson
Haywards Heath, West Sussex
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
I hope I can reassure Mr Ferguson. In last week’s
Journal (15 November, p675), I confirmed that there is nothing
to stop the Society from promoting the contribution 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. As Mr
Ferguson points out, the Society has done this on a number of occasions,
where such actions were also in the wider public interest. Our
future actions would be determined on the same basis. However,
the Society cannot champion one sector of the profession at the
expense of, or in preference to, another. Other bodies exist to
promote sectoral interests within pharmacy. |
|
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.