| · Council election
· Paracetamol
· Repeat dispensing
· Free movement in Europe
· The industry
Letters to the Editor
|
Council election
Ability to compromise makes man noble
From Mr C. Ranshaw, FRPharmS
I was extremely disturbed about the High
Court action being taken against
named individual members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council, so it was reassuring that the judge agreed that the correct
legal and proper process had been followed for petitioning the Privy
Council for a new Charter (PJ, 29 May, p659).
The election to our Council of seven members who campaigned
on that single issue is a worrying development in the electoral process (PJ, 22 May,
p629). It is of concern because it demonstrates that it is possible to
be elected not for overall experience in areas of practice, management
abilities, professional commitment and participation on committees, but
for a single issue. We have lost a depth of experience in this election.
Is this really an anti-establishment vote?
As a hospital pharmacist I am concerned that at a crucial time because
of “Agenda for change” we have lost a voice on the Council.
During my time as chairman of the Society’s Welsh Executive, the
political landscape changed following devolution and the Executive, through
hard work, became recognised by the Welsh Assembly Government as a “must
consult”, credible organisation. We must not lose that credibility.
We are a mixed profession, not just community pharmacists and an extension
of the NHS.
I argued against the annual general meeting motion on the Charter petition
on the grounds of representational democracy. I also argued that the
Council is elected to represent the profession and members, not to act
as delegates. In the same spirit I wish the new Council well and hope
that it will constructively challenge accepted facts and views, and use
its members’ capacity to think independently after assessing all
information, viewpoints and arguments but with the ability to withstand
external and peer pressure. I know that we all have the best intentions,
and we wish to do what is right for the profession and society at large.
It is easy to criticise the Council on a single issue from the outside
than it is when participating in the Council’s wide agenda. The
seven members elected on the Save Our Society label now have to offer
leadership and statesmanship to the whole of the profession on a wide
range of issues. The paradox is that they no longer have the luxury of
falling back on a single cause and may have to take a view that conflicts
with that single issue. They must remember that there is a larger representational
democracy to which they will be held accountable.Public confidence in
our profession is paramount.
Progress requires change, and change will not always be pain free: no
pain, no gain. It is not possible to sit in the “comfort zone” of
the status quo; progress should be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and
some degree of continuity within Council is essential.
It is the ability to compromise that makes man noble and I sincerely
hope that we will have a noble Council offering strong leadership. Pharmacy
has a tremendous future. Let us work together so we do not destroy our
profession.
Colin Ranshaw
Barry, Vale of Glamorgan
Is the new Council truly representative of the membership?
From Mr J. T. Mearns, FRPharmS
We have now experienced two Council elections using the first-past-the-post
(FPTP) system, which replaced the single transferable vote (STV) system.
The change in the method of voting was intended to increase the numbers
of members voting because it was thought they could not understand that
STV system. However, even with an important issue at stake, like the
Council’s petition for a new Charter, the numbers voting increased
by only 2.7 per cent since the last STV election in 2002 (PJ, 22 May,
p649). This is not what was predicted.
We have now seen what is, in my view, the disadvantage of the FPTP system,
where a group of electors supporting a particular point of view can block
vote and, in this election, all seven Save Our Society group candidates
were elected. In such a scenario, the FPTP system makes it more difficult
for members of even substantial minority groups like hospital pharmacists
to get elected to the Council, as has been shown this year.
In block voting, a proportion of the votes for the seven SOS candidates
will have been cast by members with interests common to those of the
SOS candidates. Hence the new SOS members of Council represent only a
small percentage of the total membership. Is this really the “decisive
election result” that you claim it to be (PJ, 22 May, p628)? We
should remember that only 22.8 per cent of voting papers have been returned
from a membership of 46,445 pharmacists (PJ, 22 May, p649). And you will
recall that the judge in the High Court said that he was “wholly
unable to form a view over whether the opponents were a majority or a
minority of the membership” (PJ, 29 May, p665). David Sharpe described
the 59.7 per cent of votes cast for SOS candidates as “fairly substantial” (PJ,
29 May, p659). But if this figure represents only around 10 per cent
of the total number of votes that could have been cast, is it significant?
In a few years’ time, the members, unhappy with the FPTP method
of election Council members, may return to the STV system. The STV system
gives minority groups a fairer chance of being elected to the Council.
J. T. Mearns
Bristol
A breath of fresh air
From Mr J. D. Thomas, MRPharmS
I was delighted to read Peter
Curphey’s jaundiced comments on
the result of the recent Council election (PJ, 5 June, p704). Over the
past decade, continuing electoral apathy has been fuelled by apparent
lethargy and disdain for the membership by our elected members, such
as himself. The silent majority only awake when there appears to be a
real problem that will affect their professional status and well-being.
This has certainly happened at this election. Anything that increases
electoral turnout can surely only be to the benefit of our Royal Pharmaceutical
Society.
Perhaps the breath of fresh air from these newly elected Council members
will replace the rarefied atmosphere in the Lambeth glass-house that
has seemingly denied our defeated members the necessary oxygen for clear
thinking.
David Thomas
Patshull, Shropshire
Let us hope things improve
From Mr S. M. Hayes, MRPharmS
The result of the recent
Council election (PJ, 22 May, p649) demonstrates
a resounding judgement from the electorate in a way that parallels the
1997 general election.
Peter Curphey (PJ, 5 June, p704) has yet to come to terms with being
part of an establishment that has been roundly punished by a membership
aggrieved at its failure to listen. So far, the will of the membership, “committed
activists” and otherwise, has been expressed at a special general
meeting, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual general meeting
and the past two years’ Council elections. Any Charter is not worth
the parchment it is written on if a ruling elite is able continually
to ignore the wishes of members exercising legitimate democratic rights
provided under that Charter.
In the past nearly 20 years that I have been entitled to vote and have
exercised that vote, the turnout in every Council election has been notoriously
low. By implication, the jibe “needed only to mobilise a mere 11
to 12 per cent of the electorate to make the whole profession appear
shambolic” applies to all recent manifestations of Council, even
more so if “an extra cohort of voters” was persuaded to vote
this time around. “Accumulated wisdom, expertise and experience” was
not enough to prevent the onset of arrogance and complacency.
Let us hope “things can only get better”.
Stephen Hayes
Nottingham
Misplaced interpretation
From Mr C. J. Livsey, MRPharmS
I note with incredulity the interpretation Peter
Curphey placed on the
Council election results (PJ, 5 June, p704). He attributes his
loss to the “extra cohort of voters” allegedly attracted
by the Save Our Society group. In fact only 357 more voting papers were
returned
than in the 2003 election (PJ, 22 May, p649).
As Franklin P. Adams (1856–1950), English dramatist and critic,
once said: “Elections are won by men and women chiefly because
most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody.”
Christopher Livsey
Preston, Lancashire
Time for the Society to split into two bodies
From Mr C. O. Agomo, MRPharmS
Now that the Council election has been held, it is time for us all to
accept the outcome and move on, believing that the simple lesson, that
power belongs to the people, has been learnt. It is a good lesson for
all politicians, in both governments and professional bodies: it is necessary
to keep in touch regularly with the electorate to ensure that your agenda
is in line with theirs. After all, they elected you. However, there remains
a fear by many pharmacists that if we do not sort ourselves out adequately
and impress the government, the likely outcome will be that an external
body, such as the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals,
will be asked to regulate us.
In my view, it is no longer acceptable, however one looks at it, for
a professional body to continue to regulate itself. It is like asking
a student to set examination questions for himself, supervise the test,
award marks and a certificate, and then try to convince the public and
employers that this result should be trusted.
The Government wants openness and the only way to meet that expectation
would be to go on with the new Charter with the unacceptable consequence
of losing the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s strong representative
role. An alternative will be to see if the Save Our Society group option
(having a regulatory board and a representative board) is workable. Otherwise
let us do the most honourable thing and split the Society into two separate
bodies (regulatory and representative) as practised by most leading professions
in the UK and worldwide. In this way, we avoid the unfavourable imposition
of the CHRP upon us.
Chijioke O. Agomo
London N7
Bad taste?
From Mr D. J. Livingstone, MRPharmS
May I draw your readers’ attention to an interesting little beverage, “Cuvée
Curphey” (PJ, 5 June, p704)? It is a rather bitter w(h)ine made entirely
from Manx sour grapes. Also known as “Chateau(ed) Dreams”,
some may find it hard to stomach as it is clearly past its best. Available
from Didn’t-wins.
Duncan Livingstone
North Lancing, West Sussex |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal