| Prescription checking
Nomenclature
Training
Decision support
Dispensing errors
NHS branding
The Charter
Retention fee
Letters to the Editor
|
The Charter
It would be a grave mistake to require the Council to start again
From Mr P. J. Curphey, FRPharmS
It almost made me weep to read that once again past presidents of the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society have got together to denigrate the work
of the Council and to urge the Privy Council to inflict on our profession
a burden and problem of monumental proportion (PJ, 17 January, p43).
It would be a grave mistake to require the Council to start again.
It is of course the right of any group of pharmacists to offer an opinion.
I write to urge the membership and the Privy Council not to be misled
into believing that this group holds to itself the whole of perceived
wisdom. The group consists of individuals whom I respect for their past
held office. As individuals, they vary enormously, as do all past presidents.
They have a range of attributes, they have a distinguished record; they
do not have a monopoly on wisdom. What they are not is a group with which
pharmacists should fear to disagree.
I have been told that it is patronising to suggest that the level of
understanding of those not intimately involved in the genesis of our
response to modern imperatives is not 100 per cent in every case. I think
it is realistic. How could they?
The world of regulation and of the self-serving, self protectionism of
the professions has changed for ever. The arrogance of doctors in Bristol,
the incompetence of Ledward, the inability of the nurses’ regulator
to keep poor practitioners off their register, the evil of Shipman, all
have ensured that never again will professions be allowed to take on
the world subjugating their own interests to the public interest.
In the practice of my profession there is nothing I do in the public
interest which is not in my interest, too. I need a strong, caring, thoughtful
professional body to protect my professional interests knowing that it
will look after me because progress and decisions made are in the public
interest.
I can disagree, because I have opinions of my own but my self-respect
precludes me from petitioning the representatives of the Queen and Government
to overturn the outcome of a thoughtful and logical process designed
to strengthen the hand of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (that is us).
Other professions did not have that option; they have already separated
their professional leadership and regulatory functions.
I am as certain as anyone can be that the only outcome of this drawing
up of battle lines will be the separation of roles, which we all believed
was the fool’s option, to be avoided at all cost.
It may be that there are dark forces within our profession whose sole
aim is to emasculate their professional body and leave regulation (and
all that modern regulation implies) to others, all of whom will be non-pharmacists.
If so they have not emerged yet. If they exist they will have to show
their hand soon.
I think it unlikely that the past presidents harbour such thoughts or
shelter such individuals. I do believe they are sadly mistaken
and badly informed (though that may not be entirely their own fault).
It is time for the majority within our profession (the other 44,000 who
did not sign the 1,000-signature petition despite the use of wholesalers’ distribution
systems, chat rooms, and orchestrated PJ correspondence) to speak up,
and to trust their Council and the staff of the headquarters at Lambeth
to take our profession forward.
This indignation and frothing at the mouth from distinguished past presidents
is a side show, a distraction, just as pharmacy has been accepted as
a key — if not the key — to health solutions, particularly
in primary care.
Just as it has become clear
that the modernisation of our practice is the most exciting thing to
have happened in our entire history, we throw it away with a pram-emptying
exercise of disgraceful proportion.
So will anyone listen to the old guard 11, or will they perhaps listen
to those of the Council who made some of the far-reaching recommendations,
most of which have been accepted by the profession during consultations?
Perhaps the Privy Council should remember that the Council of 2002–03
boasted (as well as the current President) no fewer than five past presidents,
six if we include the Secretary and Registrar, herself a past president.
Let us respect those opinions, bear in mind their misgivings but hardly
go overboard. We past presidents are, after all, mere mortals.
Peter Curphey
Ballaugh, Isle of Man |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.