|
· The Society
· The Council
· Free movement in Europe
· Mystery shopping
· The profession
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Stop navel-gazing!
From Mr A. B. Sutherland, MRPharmS
Having read The Journal of 12 June, may I add the voice of youth, impetuousness
and sheer annoyance to the ongoing saga about the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, its Council and the new Charter?
Never before have I had the misfortune to observe such a momentous piece
of navel-inspection. At a time when pharmacy is at a crucial turning
point, all that some members (sadly, the more vocal ones) can do is bicker
and squabble among themselves over what are to the majority of members
minor points. To be fair, I could not give two hoots if the Charter said
that the Society would represent dancing parrots as well as pharmacy,
as long as I have a job, a roof over my head, recognition of my role
and level of responsibility, and the knowledge that there is someone
watching over my shoulder to give me a boot if I do the wrong thing once
too often.
As a young, successful clinical pharmacist just embarking on my specialist
career, I am far more concerned with:
· My future role as a pharmacist, and what exciting opportunities are
ahead of me
· “Agenda for change”, and how it will ultimately affect
me, my salary and my standing in comparison with other health care professionals
· How I will be regulated as a health care professional in the future
The focus of the Society (as seen through the PJ) over the past year
has been one of introspection, self-defence and professional humiliation.
After the High Court action, how do you think we look now to a Government
that is already distrustful of professional self-regulation? I am sure
John Reid and his civil servants sit at a desk looking at us fight like
a group of five-year-olds in the school playground and laugh among themselves
as they begin to draw up plans to have us regulated by a lay body, because
we are currently demonstrating just how unable we are to keep our own
house in order. Nor can we represent our members to outside bodies because
our representative body is too busy defending itself from this mind-numbing
and, frankly, irrelevant “debate”.
I urge all members to take their fingers out of their belly buttons and
look at who is standing over us. Doctors, nurses, dietitians, chiropodists — all
of them are undoubtedly looking at us with some element of amusement
and a greater amount of scorn. How can we call ourselves “professionals” when
all we have done thus far is demonstrate how unprofessional and self-serving
we can be.
If the Society continues to fail people like myself, there may be moves
for division within the profession. Hospital pharmacists could so easily
go off on their own. (The Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists seems to be
doing more to cover our backs, develop our side of the profession and
expand our role within the NHS than the Society at present.) And once
one group goes, others will surely follow. In short, if we continue to
argue the toss over what the Society is, there shall be no Society.
I may be young, and I may be being impertinent by saying these things,
but if people stopped and stood back to look at events of the past year,
I am sure they would all join me in deep embarrassment. Please, sort
it out before the problem is sorted for us.
Adam Sutherland
London SW9
Change does not necessarily mean progress
From Mr A. G. McCourt, MRPharmS
I read with interest the letter from Peter
Curphey (PJ, 5 June, p704).
The reference to government intent and public will called to mind a recent
Panorama programme on licensing laws, whereby government intent and public
will has led to a relaxation of regulations. The result has been an increase
in drunken behaviour, violence and overstretched emergency services.
This is just one example of how a change has not necessarily meant progress.
I voted for the Save Our Society candidates in the recent Council election
because I want a Royal Pharmaceutical Society which represents my profession
and my values, and is not subject to the shifting tides of government
policy and public opinion. The Charter we apply for must achieve that
even if it is not the “flavour of the month” in government
circles.
Al McCourt
Carlisle,
Cumbria
Three clean sheets of paper needed
From Mr J. A. S. Buisson, MRPharmS
Now that its Council has at last decided to amend
the draft new Charter (PJ, 12 June, p727), the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should try to get
the process right.
Three clean sheets of paper are needed: one for the Charter, one for
the Section 60 order and one for the Byelaws.
The Charter sets out what the Society is for, what the rights and responsibilities
of the members and the Council are, and the professional and representative
side of the Society’s work. The Section 60 order — which
the Society has spent a long time discussing with the Department of Health
but which it has yet to feel the need to share with the members — sets
out the powers of the Society as a modern regulator. The Byelaws explain
how all this will work in practice. None of these documents is an island:
without the others, none is complete or fully understandable.
The Society must then invite its members and other stakeholders it considers
important for their input. Then fully amended drafts should be put to
the membership for clause-by-clause approval. All three documents would
then come into effect at the same time.
As I once described (PJ, 19 April 2003, p554), this is how it was done
the last time. This is how is should be done this time. If the Society
had gone down this path from the beginning then there would not be “a
Council in crisis” now (PJ, 12 June, p726).
Jonathan Buisson
Hook,
Hampshire
Time for a rational debate
From Mr J. D. Khan, MRPharmS
It is with great interest that I have been following reports of the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council election and subsequent
Council meeting.
It was deeply disheartening to read the negative comments by some of
the respondents in recent weeks including those of two unsuccessful candidates
which I find ironic, since the seven Save Our Society candidates won
convincingly in a democratic election in much the same way as previous
Council members have been elected. Interestingly, the seven SOS candidates
have secured a mandate by the membership for their policies, while the
unsuccessful candidates have been punished for their policies, namely,
the support of an “unpopular” Charter. As far as the notion
that the Council has lost “wisdom, expertise and experience” as
claimed by Peter Curphey (PJ, 5 June, p704), I would rather have innovation,
leadership and strong representation of the membership from our elected
members consistent with the wishes of the vast majority of the membership.
The simple fact is that the unsuccessful candidates pursued policies
that were contrary to the membership wishes and paid a heavy penalty
for ignoring and bypassing the views of grassroots pharmacists.
I was appalled by the resignation
of Privy Council-nominated Council member Michael Schofield (PJ, 12 June, p727) who, like a spoilt child,
resigned because he could not get the President or Council of his choice.
I was under the impression that Privy Council members were appointed
by the Government to serve on professional bodies regardless of the composition
of their ruling bodies or do these Privy Council members dictate the
composition of the Council? The other two Privy Council members show
equal arrogance and hold the profession to ransom by putting the Council “on
notice”, rather like George Orwell’s “Big Brother”,
presumably to discipline the new Council on acting on the wishes of the
membership. Such bully-boy tactics are unwarranted and, unlike the Privy
Council members, the pharmacist Council members are elected by the membership
to a body that was set up as representative body. The Council should
do what is right for the membership and not acquiesce to the wishes of
the Government. The Society resembles a Government body rather than a
professional body.
Finally, I abhor the comments made by Jim Smith (PJ, 12 June, p727),
our “champion” at the Department of Health, for flippantly
ruling out the two-board
model as proposed by the Young Pharmacists’ Group
and the SOS group. In my view, this model is the only legal and practical
way that self-regulation can be preserved, with the other option being
to have the Society as a representative body and the regulation aspect
coming under the umbrella of the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare
Professionals.
The extent to which the Society has conceded to the DoH is worrying;
whatever happened to the concept of professional bodies looking after
the professionals’ interest? Enough of “public interest”!
What about members’ interests? No other body would sell its representative
function so it could solely focus on regulation. It is time to have a
rational debate about a revised Charter followed by referendum of the
membership.
J. D. Khan
Rochdale,
Lancashire
We may have reached the point of no return
From Mr P. J. Curphey, FRPharmS
I am sure you will allow me to comment on letters in The Journal of
12 June specifically criticising me and my “sour grapes” letter.
I was, of course, certain that the interpretation put on it would be
just that, which was why I tried hard not to relate my election defeat
(despite a higher poll), ie, my personal position, with the position
in which the Royal Pharmaceutical Society finds itself. My passionate
concern is for my profession and its governing body, not me. (Does the
fact that others see it otherwise say much more about them than it does
about me?)
My gut feeling reinforced by the contemptible behaviour of the new Council
in removing all the Officers at one go (despite a statesmanlike year
for all of them) and prompting the unprecedented resignation of one of
our public interest guardians, is that we may have reached the point
of no return.
Reports I have heard of the actual Council meeting are, frankly, disgraceful
and I fear for the future.
The Department of Health cannot stand idly by while a statutory body
self-destructs. The potential resignation of other Privy Council nominees
brings into question the Society’s statutory responsibilities and
action would then become mandatory. Do these people really know what
they have done?
Chijioke Agomo suggests that the Society should split into two (PJ, 12
June, p739). I and others warned of the almost inevitable split which
would be brought about by failing to understand the real issues in this
complicated situation. A Section 60 order under the Health Act will render
the current Council irrelevant and yet, despite protestations, Save Our
Society campaigners may yet precipitate that which they claimed, at least,
not to want.
I wish the new Council great wisdom in redebating the Charter and self-regulation
after Kennedy. It is a pity that there are now fewer members who have
got their heads round the intricacies and, yet, time is of the essence
for decisions.
Once again can I say that despite unpleasant personal attacks from the “usual
suspects” I remain solution-driven, not arrogant, not old establishment,
not unaware of pharmacists’ real feelings, and certainly not complacent.
Duncan Livingstone’s creative missive (PJ, 12 June, p739) could
not be further from the truth (and provided it was written with mischief
in mind it was at least fun). Remember, however, the old adage: “There
is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being
talked about.”
I will continue to bring the Council’s shortcomings to public attention
as I have (even when a member) for the past 13 years.
Peter Curphey
Ballaugh, Isle of Man
Functions should be split between separate organisations
From Mr J. B. Paige, MRPharmS
There is, I suppose, some comfort in learning that Tony Blair’s
government has not completely abandoned traditional socialism. It is now
obvious to all that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is to be nationalised!
In their different ways, Jim Smith and Mr Justice Park have made it clear
that the Department of Health intends to seize control of the assets and
functions of the Society and is not prepared to offer compromise or compensation
to the members.
Since no other change is possible, the only amendment needed to the new
Charter is to remove all reference to the promotion of the profession.
Once nationalisation has fossilised the Society, it will be neither fit
nor willing to react to changes affecting pharmacy, still less to promote
the interests of pharmacists against those of other health professions
competing for extended roles and funding.
With the Society forced to become a purely regulatory body, there is an
urgent need for an alternative organisation to represent pharmacists and
promote the profession of pharmacy. The Pharmacists’ Defence Association
would seem to be ideally placed to take over this role.
The demands on pharmacists from courts, employers, regulators and the public
are becoming ever more onerous. Before long the vast majority of employed
pharmacists will realise that they need personal professional liability
insurance. This makes it likely that the Pharmacists’ Defence Association
will soon be representing the interests of most pharmacists in legal, disciplinary
and industrial relations disputes, so it would be a natural extension of
its work to represent us politically as well.
At a time of great changes in health care, pharmacy needs both effective
regulation and strong representation if it is to provide the standard of
service the public needs from the profession. It is now clear that this
can only come about if the two functions are split between separate organisations.
Barrie Paige
Guernsey,
Channel Islands |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal