|
· Which? report
· Community pharmacy
· Branded generics
· Open-plan dispensing
· Value added tax
· CPD
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Journal
Why the moratorium?
From Mr D. Simpson, FRPharmS
I would be glad if you would publish a rational explanation for the
editorial decision to cease to publish further comment from members on
the dispute about a petition for a new Royal Charter for the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society (PJ, 21 February, p204).
As you acknowledge, there are at the present time no legal restraints
on you publishing further comment, other than the normal ones concerning
defamation. Accountability-wise, the Council has not asked you to call
a halt to the debate. Is it that you just do not like argument. Surely
not? It is the lifeblood of journalism in a civilised society.
Issues surrounding the possible granting of a new Charter have yet to
be resolved. There is much still to be discussed. So why have you decided
that this discussion should not take place in The Journal’s pages,
and involve the Society’s members?
A High Court case could be some way off, so your moratorium could last
for a long time. I suspect that if you seek to persist, your position
on it will become increasingly untenable.
It is, as you will know, the policy of the Council that The Journal “be
produced in the interests of the members of the Society rather than the
governing body” (PJ, 22 July, 1989, p110). The decision that you
and your staff have taken is, in my opinion, against members’ interests
and arguably contrary to long-established Council policy.
Douglas Simpson
Beckenham, Kent
Member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
| |
We do not believe our decision is against members’ interests.
As we pointed out last week (PJ, 21 February, p204), nothing will
be gained by publishing further comment on the issues until the case
is heard in the High Court. Further debate in the pages of The
Journal is likely to be repetitive and will have no impact on that decision.
Moreover, we argued that issues are more likely to be muddied than
clarified by further comment, which would not serve members’ interests.
In our view, any “issues surrounding the possible granting
of a new Charter” can only be resolved after the High Court
decision, and our pages will be open to include comment about developments
thereafter. However, we are still reporting events as they occur
(see p235)
—
EDITOR.
|
Hopes dashed again!
From Mr R. H. Higson, MRPharmS
I had a similar disappointment to Jim
Rabbett (PJ, 21 February, p216)
regarding POEMS. I was reminded of a poem my father regularly quoted:
Johnny
feeling life a bore drank some H2SO4,
His father, an MD, gave him some CaCO3.
This neutralised him ’tis true,
But now he’s full of CO2!
Ralph Higson
Wokingham,
Berkshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal