The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 272 No 7284 p121
31 January 2004

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 80K

  Decision support
  Compliance
  CD regulations
  Dispensing
  Pharmacy assistants
  Packaging
  Alcohol metabolism
  Capacity planning
  Reciprocity
  The Charter

Letters to the Editor

The Charter

Speaking up, at last

From Miss J. Goulding, MRPharmS

Can I just send a few words of thanks to Peter Curphey for his inspiring letter last week (PJ, 24 January, p86). His call to the remaining 44,000 of our profession who did not sign the recent anti-Charter petition to speak up truly hit home, serving to highlight my recent apathetic attitude towards all Royal Pharmaceutical Society issues.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity to begin to rectify this recent behaviour and speak up now by publicly applauding the work of all those involved in the Save Our Society campaign.

Mr Curphey says he almost wept when he read the comments of the past Presidents. I foresee a torrent of his tears before this story is over.

Jo Goulding
Warwick

Hold a referendum

From Mr R. A. Rutter, MRPharmS

Peter Curphey (PJ, 24 January, p86) calls on the majority of the profession (the 44,000 who did not sign the 1,000-signature petition organised by Hassan Argomandkhah) to make their voices heard. I hope this means he will be pressing the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council, which he praises so eloquently, to honour the obligation in the current Charter to call a special general meeting of the membership. The SGM last year and the petition were both indicative of substantial support for the Save Our Society campaign stance on the Charter. The Council elections are another, and I imagine that Mr Curphey will remember that in the Council election of 2003 he came 11th behind several SOS candidates (PJ, 24 May 2003, p735). How else can members make their views known except by voting for candidates who share their views? It is called democracy.

Richard Rutter
Harrogate, North Yorkshire

Silence demonstrates a profound lack of engagement

From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS

So Peter Curphey (PJ, 24 January, p86) opposes the actions of the 11 past presidents in their efforts to prevent the hijacking of our professional body. It is little surprise that Mr Curphey is “nearly weeping” since he was one of the principal architects of this attempt, in my view, to reposition the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as solely a government regulator. Mr Curphey disagrees: so be it. But he skilfully omits to reveal the true extent of the opposition which, in addition to 11 past presidents also includes the immediate past secretary and registrar, two former editors of The Pharmaceutical Journal, the last two heads of the Society’s law department, the Young Pharmacists Group, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the Institute of Pharmacy Management. Is this, perhaps, where the “true wisdom” that Mr Curphey claims for himself really resides?

Where I do agree with him, however, is in the need for pharmacists to have a caring, thoughtful professional body to promote and protect our interests — so why the attempt to remove Object 3 (representation) from the proposed new Charter?

It is revealing that Mr Curphey believes that our all-graduate profession does not have enough understanding of the issues to make a decision on the future of our professional body. I fail to understand how he can describe the consultation exercise, which essentially ignored the views of those consulted as “a thoughtful and logical process”. It seems to me that the endpoint was predetermined from the start, and no account was taken of the profound opposition expressed by pharmacists at every stage of the process.

If, as Mr Curphey suggests, the ultimate result is that the Society’s roles are split, then he only has himself and those of his persuasion to blame. The members, myself included, voted overwhelmingly for the Society to retain its representative as well as regulatory functions. Yet what the proposed Charter would have delivered is, as I firmly believe, purely and simply a Government regulatory “poodle”, which would have access to the Society’s assets built up by pharmacists over 160 years of our history.

To suggest, as Mr Curphey does, that the majority of the profession is on the side of this change, is extraordinary. May we please know on what evidence he bases this assertion? It is a common ploy of those clinging on to power to assume the support of the silent majority when they fail to gain votes from the electorate. To move forward on this basis is unwise: the silence simply demonstrates a profound lack of engagement. The truth is that as engagement on the modernisation issue has grown, so has the opposition.

Other than 16 members of the Council (three of whom are not pharmacists but are unelected and are, in effect, government appointees), how many pharmacists signed “his” petition? If his view has the support of the membership then why was a referendum denied? As for trust and the Council (another of Mr Curphey’s themes), there is none. This was clearly demonstrated by Marcus Longley’s summary of the outcome of the Charter consultation process (PJ, 13 September 2003, p349).

Mr Curphey has got it wrong — if anyone represents the old guard, it is him. And my evidence for this assertion? The democratic process. Mr Curphey was thoroughly trounced by SOS candidates at the 2003 Council election and I look forward to seeing the next phase of this process following the next set of Council elections in May.

Graham Phillips
St Albans, Hertfordshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Reciprocity)