Let the profession move on
Members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council who voted to petition the Queen for a new Charter last December have won a summary dismissal of the Save Our Society group’s High Court action. Mr Justice Park stated that the Privy Council was the forum in which any decision about the future of the Charter petition should be made (see p665). The SOS group plans to appeal Mr Justice Park’s judgment and denies that this is a delaying tactic. But, with costs having been already awarded against the group and an admission that it will have to appeal to its supporters for more funds (p659), tough decisions will have to be made about embarking on such an appeal.
The watershed will be the next Council meeting (to be held on 7 and 8
June). It is widely expected that there will be a motion put to the new
Council requesting the Privy Council to return the Charter petition.
For starters, this would put the Privy Council out of some misery. It
acknowledged in January that it was unprecedented to receive a counter-petition — which
it did from the SOS group — and that it was putting its decision-making
process on hold until after the High Court proceedings (PJ, 31 January,
p109). With an appeal now pending, the Privy Council can leave any decision
about the Charter on ice. It may well be relieved to do so because what
a tricky decision that would be, given that it has a clear green light
from the High Court and an equally strong red light from the counter-petitioners,
who now have the backing of the pharmacy electorate.
If the Society’s Council does agree in June to withdraw the petition,
the Privy Council will doubtless breathe a sigh of relief, the SOS campaign
might decide that an appeal is not worthwhile, and the Council will find
itself with some extremely important work to do.
It will have many decisions to make. How much of the new Charter will
be preserved? Will Object 3 of the 1953 Charter be retained? And, repeating
the questions The Journal posed at the beginning of the year (PJ, 31
January, p108), what outcome do the Council and members want at the end
of this process and why? What outcome will best serve the interests of
pharmacists, pharmacy and the public?
Most pharmacists, whatever their views on the new Charter, can only hope
that these issues are dealt with promptly so that the profession can
move on. The time has come for Council members, existing and new, to
unite behind the President and the other Officers and set aside past
differences in a spirit of fellowship and compromise. The time has come,
too, for everyone to pull together for the sake of the profession and
for the sake of how the wider world perceives it.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal