| Dose alteration
CD regulations
New contract
Clinical trials
Dispensing
Developing countries
SOS action
The Charter
Letters to the Editor
|
The Charter
Let us return to reason
From Mr P. J. Curphey, FRPharmS
Since I wrote (PJ, 24 January, p86) asking the silent majority to save
their profession — and make no mistake, it is as important as that —
things have moved on and, in my view, taken a catastrophic turn. I warned
of “dark forces” and wondered when they might emerge. I do
not know if the four names, on the application
to the High Court against
their own elected Council (PJ, 31 January, p109), regard themselves as
heroes; neither do I know if these are those dark forces.
I received a flyer this week from the Pharmacists’ Defence Association,
of which one of the names mentioned in the High Court application is
a director. In this the PDA states that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
cannot defend an individual pharmacist’s interests because it must
act in the public interest — which is what the modernisation steering
group and the majority of the Council have been saying all along. How
would it be possible to enshrine the defence of an individual pharmacist
in the objects of a Royal Charter?
It may well be that pharmacists do require a defence association. My
view is that by destroying the Society we will end up with two bodies:
a modern regulator and a “defence body” which will need well-resourcing.
I hope its members think hard about where that money will come from.
Graham Phillips suggested last week (p121) that I am part of the old
guard and it amuses me that he calls on another old guard, many of them
past Society employees, to support his case. But the old way of doing
things has gone, not because is was so terrible, but because it is not
now relevant: circumstances have changed.
Mr Phillips also suggested that I am one of the principal architects
for repositioning the Society. However, the architect of this change
was nothing to do with the Society: it was Sir Ian Kennedy and his report
into the Bristol heart surgery scandal. The Council, from the release
of that report, spent its time and energy working to ensure that we kept
all that was good about the professional leadership body, a fact acknowledged
in Kennedy, while at the same time moving smoothly into the 21st century
as a modern regulator, keeping, please note, all that has served us so
well for 160 years. The architects of repositioning are the signatories
to the High Court application. I fear, if they are successful, they will
bring about the very disaster they forecast.
In my earlier letter, I did not claim “true wisdom”; just
the opposite. In fact I stressed that I was but a “mere mortal” with
a view. However, it is — and I make no apology for repeating it — simply
not acceptable to frame the objects of the Society in such a way as to
suggest, imply, or state that the interests of pharmacists will be put
before the public interest. A new (or amended) Charter cannot contain
that, and we do not have the time to give it a try to see if we can get
away with it. There will be consultation on both the Section 60 order
and the Charter: any High Court delay will be perilous.
The Section 60 order will not wait. But it will be framed as the Government
wishes and any delay will result in the Charter having to match and reflect
that Order. If the Council’s petition goes ahead, we will be strengthened
by the new Charter and the law (in the form of the Section 60 order)
will simply back that up. But it is not possible to create a dual body
that can be in conflict with itself and, in the current political climate,
the regulator will prevail.
A modern regulator is nothing to fear. It encompasses all that is good
about our professional body: education, research, practice, information
and support. Our Society will never, in view of the new wording of the
Charter, let us down as a profession. It can never represent an individual
pharmacist’s personal interest. That is what the PDA can do. How
fortunate that it exists.
Over the past two years, our 45,000 members have been bombarded with
every possible type of communication about the draft new Charter and
1,000 of them signed a petition opposing it. How can it be that among
the 44,000 who did not sign there are concealed so many more fervent
supporters ready to be stirred up by this small, assertive group of High
Court applicants? How many small groups have there been in the history
of politics that have wreaked havoc by claiming to represent the true
majority even when they appear to have the support of just over 2 per
cent of the audience?
Let us see an end now to the macho politics and a return to reason. Withdraw
the application as a sign of goodwill before irreversible damage is done.
It is not yet too late: agreement must be possible if everyone’s
motives are transparent, honest and in good faith.
Peter Curphey
Ballaugh, Isle of Man |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat
Reader 4 or later.