|
· The Society
· Malaria awareness
· PI insurance
· Statins
· Methadone maintenance
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Let us put further litigation behind us
From Mr A. Tanna, FRPharmS
On 28 May in the High Court Mr Justice Park ruled that the Council of
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society behaved lawfully when it petitioned
the Queen for a new Charter and awarded an initial sum of interim costs
of £30,000 against the Save Our Society litigants. The SOS group
is disappointed by the judgment and has decided
to appeal (PJ, 29 May,
p659).
Earlier in the same week, seven
SOS candidates were elected to the Society’s
Council (PJ, 22 May, p629) and it is my understanding that the following
motion is being put at the forthcoming June Council meeting: “In
view of the support shown by the members for the policies of the SOS
campaign in recent Council election results and AGM, the Council should
in the best long-term interest of the Society and without seeking the
recovery of the costs, resolve all proceedings brought against individual
members and former Council members in respect of the Council decision
to petition for a new Royal Charter.”
The proposer of this motion must realise that the SOS group took 16 individual
Council members and the Society to court and, having lost its case, should
consider carefully whether to proceed to the Court of Appeal and incur
further legal costs not knowing what the outcome of the case would be.
The SOS group should adhere to Mr Justice Park’s judgment.
We must all put this further unnecessary litigation behind us and pull
together in the interests of the membership and the profession. Perhaps
the Council may decide at the June meeting to withdraw the petition.
If it does, it will then have many decisions to make. How much of the
new Charter will be preserved? Will Object 3 of the 1953 Supplemental
Charter be retained? How will the new Charter be in the interest of pharmacists
and the public?
SOS campaigners may decide that an appeal is not worthwhile and may go
for a referendum once the new Charter has been finalised by the Council.
Ashwin Tanna
Sydenham, London SE26
Strength in unity
From Mr D. Leach
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is to be the future regulator for pharmacy
technicians, with a register planned to open in January 2005. The Association
of Pharmacy Technicians UK will remain the professional, representative
voice for pharmacy technicians, but the role and credibility of our future
regulator — the Society — will become an equally important
issue for pharmacy technicians, too.
We recognise that although there are important issues at stake and strong
feelings on all sides, the recent Society Council election and the events
surrounding it have all been conducted in full view of the Government
and the public at large. It is clear that these events have helped neither
the image nor the standing of the wider pharmacy profession in anyone’s
eyes.
When Gill Hawksworth was elected President of the Society last year,
she said: “Let us all work together for a brighter future” (PJ,
21 June 2003, p871). As all parties prepare to work in what has now become
an uncertain future, my association hopes that this commonsense message — of
strength in unity — will be remembered by all over the coming weeks.
Darren Leech
President, Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK
www.aptuk.org
New Council must pull together
From Mrs S. J. Greensmith, MRPharmS
Most supporters of the Save
Our Society group have sincerely held views
but I hope the newly elected members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council are beginning to realise how the actions of the SOS group may
be destroying the credibility of our profession within the Department
of Health and the newly formed Council for the Regulation of Healthcare
Professionals (CRHP). To disregard the Government’s direction of
travel will only lead to exactly what the SOS group does not want: our
Society will be controlled by the CRHP and we will lose the autonomy
we have enjoyed since the profession began.
Moreover, the judge in the recent court case ruled the Council, acting
on behalf of the Society, acted
lawfully in submitting the petition for
the new Charter in December (PJ, 29 May, p659).
If we want our profession to retain self-regulation then the new members
of Council must immediately get up to speed with all the issues and reasons
for the previous Council’s decisions and vote to retain the existing
Officers.
There is a vast amount of work to be done and many challenges ahead and
I trust that the newly elected members of Council will be worthy of the
faith that has been placed in them and use their own integrity to work
as individuals in the Council team rather than as part of a “single
issue” group.
Sally Greensmith
Godalming,
Surrey
Why I am dismayed by Council election results
From Mr P. J. Curphey, FRPharmS
I suppose, after an election, defeated candidates are allowed to complain
just as winners are allowed to gloat. This year, like the others, I was
defeated by the Save Our Society group’s sabre-rattling and shroud-waving,
which attracted an extra cohort of voters in the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Council election.
I was dismayed by the election result, but not only on my own account.
My main concern lies with the hard-working Council members who were removed
by an organised cabal, which many of us think brought the High Court
action as a delaying tactic. (The High Court has made it clear that the
Council did not break the rules, whatever the SOS group says.) In addition,
there have been clear breaches of the election “rules”, which
I accept are unenforceable, by supporters of the SOS aims.
The loss of accumulated wisdom, expertise and experience over the past
two elections we will all, I fear, surely rue.
What has happened is that a small number of committed activists, members
of my profession, have wasted nearly a year of the Council’s time
when their eyes should have been on the ball of Government intent and
public will. They needed only to mobilise a mere 11 to 12 per cent of
the electorate to make the whole profession appear shambolic.
And what of the Privy Council nominee members of Council? They have behaved
impeccably over the whole matter but to my mind they are likely to be
dismayed by the outcome.
We can hope, of course, that the new Council members can show some humility
and knuckle down to the really important work that has to be done.
But they should rest assured there are some of us who will not stand
idly by and see an entire profession go to the wall and those who have
been newly elected may well find themselves challenged at every turn.
They have represented themselves as guardians of the popular will; now
we will see if they listen to any of their opponents at special general
meetings, branch meetings, etc.
Peter Curphey
Ballaugh, Isle of Man
Focus now on pharmacy's future role
From Mr M. W. Beaman, FRPharmS
I write in support of the sentiments expressed by Charles
Butler (PJ,
29 May, p669) concerning the move towards a new Charter for the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society.
It is now time for the membership to draw a line under the present Save
Our Society campaign, now that the High Court has issued the summary
dismissal of the claim last week (PJ, 29 May, p659).
I find it appalling that at a time when there should be a public display
of unity, in supporting such higher issues as the developing professional
role of pharmacy and the new contract, there is still so much in-fighting
going on. What image does this project to other professions, the Department
of Health and the wider public?
Admittedly the Council could have improved its communications and presentation
of the new Charter and there is no better person to rectify that situation
than the current President.
I would urge all SOS Council members now to focus on realising the potential
of the future role of pharmacy; after all, that is what they are there
for.
Mike Beaman
St Albans,
Hertfordshire
Let us not lose self-regulation
From Mrs K. L. Simister, MRPharmS
As you rightly say in your leading
article (PJ, 22 May, p628), the pharmacy
landscape may well be about to change as a result of the recent election
to the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
I cannot claim to understand the subtleties of the discussions that have
taken place regarding the new Charter, however this is now a difficult
and decisive time in the Society’s history.
The present Government has made it clear that, in the light of cases such
as the Bristol children’s surgery inquiry and Shipman, the regulation
of health care professionals requires considerable change. Few could argue
with that.
The right of a professional body to self-regulate has come under particular
scrutiny. One only has to note the ongoing debate regarding the role of
the General Medical Council, in particular with regard to the Shipman inquiry.
The risk we could face now, as a result of the Council election, is that
in the near future the Government may conclude that the Society is unable
to put in place a satisfactory form of self-regulation for the profession.
Should this occur we may find that our Society becomes a powerless representative
body, while the formulation and implementation of the regulations whereby
individual pharmacists practise will be set by an external body.
At a time of unprecedented opportunities for the profession it would be
sad to see the regulatory role at risk of passing to an external organisation,
where pharmacy might be regarded as one of a myriad of allied health professions
in terms of regulation.
The Society has a respected self-regulation profile; one hopes that that
will not be lost as a result of the recent election results.
Katrina Simister
Chester |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal