| · Community pharmacy
· The Profession
· Thalidomide
· Which? report
· Art
· Alcohol metabolism
· The register
· The Society
· CPD
Letters to the Editor
|
The register
Removing addresses is an unwelcome change
From Dr J. A. Hunt, FRPharmS
May I support Bruce Rhodes (PJ, 21 February, p216) in regretting, and
seriously questioning, the need to remove members’ addresses from
the published Register. The future Register will be a useless document.
The main reasons that individuals form themselves into societies are
to facilitate communication and social activities between like-minded
members and, by combining their strength, to protect their common interests.
This was undoubtedly the reason that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
was founded in 1841. A principal means of contacting fellow members is
now taken away.
I have long taken the opportunity of writing to pharmacist colleagues,
perhaps not contacted for many years, to congratulate them on election
to office or to fellowship of the Society, to express condolence on bereavement,
or to seek knowledge or guidance. For many years I have assisted in the
organisation of a reunion of my own student body on a five-yearly basis.
The first task has always been to update the invitation list by checking
the addresses of all those who have moved in the interim in the Register.
How are we to accomplish this task in the future? Are staff of the registry
willing to take on this time-consuming task, or will one of us need to
go to London to peruse at the proper register?
I have yet to hear a cogent reason for this significant change to our
privileges of membership. The home security point is questionable. The
number of assaults on pharmacists is mercifully small, although deeply
regrettable, but they invariably occur at places of business. I cannot
recall a report of a home assault connected with the victim’s profession.
In any case, why cannot members register at their business address if
they so wish? I am aware that there is prejudice against this at Lambeth
but there is no real reason for it. If members wish to keep home and
work separate, and to have journals and official notices delivered to
their place of work, where they will normally read and apply them, then
why should they not do so?
With this unwelcome change, a long-held facility of a membership organisation
is lost, as we move nearer to the position of a supervisory body. I note
that Philip Green is willing to forward correspondence provided the member’s
name and registration number are known. How many of us can recall our
own registration number, let alone that of any other pharmacist? Or are
we expected to buy a copy of an otherwise useless document in order to
look up registration numbers?
I cannot understand why our elected members of Council do not oppose
unjustified proposals such as the emasculation of the Register with more
vigour than has been evident.
John Hunt
Southport,
Merseyside
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal