|
Statins
Oseltamivir
Diabetes
Packaging
Product names
Alcohol metabolism
Decision support
Modernisation
President's message
Fellowships
Retention fee
Christmas miscellany
Letters to the Editor
|
Modernisation
I believe our profession has been weakened
From Mr C. Martin, MRPharmS
I have watched from the sidelines with growing concern and feel strongly
that I should now take the opportunity through your letters columns to
voice my concerns regarding the new Charter for our profession and comment
on the way our Council has seemed to ignore the views of some of our
colleagues.
I took the opportunity to respond to the consultation and was grateful
for the personal response received from modernisation project manager
Christine Gray. I was specifically concerned regarding the process of
consultation and the fact that in the absence of the S60 order we were
being asked to decide on the future of our profession without all the
facts. I understand that the Department of Health has been given proposals
regarding the new legislation by the Council but, as usual, it is the
Government that will ultimately determine and have the final say on what
appears in the draft Order.
The Charter should concern itself with representation and the Order should
take care of the regulatory function. Both are inextricably linked and
between them should form a robust framework that will secure our professional
future.
I believe the process should have and could have been better co-ordinated
by the Council. Therefore I cannot understand why there is such a great
rush to sign off the new Charter and why in the face of some major opposition
and concerns further consultation and dialogue has been ruled out. I
have some sympathy with the Save Our Society campaigners and still cannot
understand why a 1,000-name petition seems to have been ignored.
I am chairman of the primary care organisation (LHB) in Pembrokeshire
and in a similar situation I would have been duty bound to respond to
such a mark of discontent with the process. Lessons must be learnt from
this. I am sure that support for their cause would be welcomed and this
apparent injustice should be addressed.
It is clear to me that during this time change it is essential that we
have strong professional representation and leadership. I believe this
has been a missed opportunity and strongly feel that our profession has
been weakened by the whole process.
Chris Martin
Chairman, Pembrokeshire LHB
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
As Mr Martin says, the Council’s proposals for the
S60 Order are now with the Government. Ultimately, the terms of
both the Order and the Charter are in the hands of Government ministers,
since it is Government ministers who take Privy Council decisions.
It is also right that the Charter and legislation are inextricably
linked. If decisions on the Charter had been delayed until the
draft
legislation was ready, the Government might not then have been
willing to alter it to fit in with what the Council wanted to see
in the
Charter. The Council could then have been restricted to producing
a Charter to fit with the legislation as drafted.
The Council’s intention is certainly not to ignore the views of pharmacists,
which have informed and strengthened the draft Charter. The Council’s purpose
in petitioning the Privy Council at this time is to ensure that the Government
will prepare its S60 Order in the clear knowledge of the Council’s wishes
for both the legislation and the Charter. This provides the best means of making
certain that, between them, they form a robust framework that will secure the
broad remit of the Society and reinforce the key roles of professional leadership
and development. |
Member of silent majority speaks out
From Mrs P. K. Sandhu, MRPharmS
After reading letters in The Pharmaceutical Journal and postings on
the Private-Rx website, this former member of the silent majority has
been moved to write. I find the wording of the Charter impossibly difficult
to decipher, and agree with Tony
Watson’s sentiments (PJ, December
20/27 2003, p840). I thought we lived in a world where plain English
was the gold standard, or maybe I am a naive idealist.
I have always put trust in the champions who I know do understand such
technical details to thrash it out and work towards a just outcome. It
appears, however, that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is following
the culture of the current Government: ignoring the wishes and concerns
of the majority in order to pursue its own strategy relentlessly. I urge
everyone who, like me, has so far not got personally involved to
read whatever they can: get out those old copies of the PJ (or just hit
the search button on the website), visit the Save Our Society website pages and make up your mind which side you support. Then do something
about it.
After more than 20 years in a profession which I believe has always been “world-class” but
poorly represented by its gatekeepers, this pharmacist is going to raise
her head above the parapet and risk being counted (or shot down).
Paramjit
Sandhu
Southall,
Middlesex
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
The recital, or introduction, of the Charter certainly sounds
old-fashioned but this is still the required form for such documents.
In updating the Charter, the Council is seeking to secure the Society’s
integrated remit as a regulatory and professional body, which is what the majority
of pharmacists who responded said that they want.
The Council has taken full account of the views expressed in two consultations
on the Charter and in more than 50 meetings held around Britain.
The new Charter, if granted, will allow us to retain the flexibility and autonomy
that chartered status provides and will support the development of the profession
well into the future. |
|
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.