The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 272 No 7297 p543
1 May 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

· Indemnity insurance
· CPD
· Drug nomenclature
· NHS pension scheme
· Ampoule labelling
· The profession
· Electronic prescribing
· Canvassing
· The Society

Letters to the Editor

Canvassing

Astonished by decision

From Mr G. A. Miller, MRPharmS

I was astonished by the editorial decision to publish letters last week regarding the apparent canvassing activities taking place for the Save Our Society campaign. To publish such letters at a time when the candidates are not able to reply to these accusations is unbelievable. Stephen Axon (PJ, 24 April, p506) says that he does not think the SOS candidates will have done themselves any favours by using this tactic. Clearly he has evidence then that it was the seven candidates that were responsible for the canvassing, so perhaps he would like to share this with the rest of us.

Following directly on from this was Malcolm Allan’s letter suggesting that those responsible for the canvassing believed the information supplied through the pages of the PJ was inadequate. Perhaps Mr Allan should recall that recent branch representatives’ meetings have successfully put motions stating that canvassing should be allowed. Clearly there is a groundswell of opinion that this information is inadequate.

It is also worth noting that the Council agreed in December 2002 that the current restrictions on canvassing would not apply to elections to the reformed Council (PJ, 14 December 2002, p863). Indeed Philip Green, deputy secretary of the Society, said when talking about canvassing that “the Council had recognised that enforcement of the current rules was not sustainable in the long term (PJ, 26 April 2003, p567)”.

It is conceivable that following statements such as these, there may be members who were under the impression that canvassing was allowed for this year’s elections.

Gavin Miller
London W6

Should PJ have published letters?

From Dr J. A. Hunt, FRPharmS

I agree with Stephen Axon (PJ, 24 April, p506) in favouring the freedom to canvass but I am not offended by the decision of seven candidates to include in their statements certain wording agreed with others. I have not received a postcard of the type Mr Axon mentions, or the circular described by Malcolm Allan in the letter which followed Mr Axon’s, so I cannot comment on either.

Should the PJ, I ask, be publishing letters criticising certain of the candidates in the Council election at a time when those candidates are unable to respond to criticism due to the canvassing regulations? The outcome of this election is important to the future of our Society and it must be for the candidates themselves to decide how they word their statements of policy.

John Hunt
Southport

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Electronic prescribing)
Next Topic (The Society)