| · The Society
· Pharmacy education
· Patient safety
· Statins
· Dispensing
· Packaging
· Resources
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Can one body exist without conflicts of interest arising?
From Mr M. J. Pettit, MRPharmS
I read with interest Alan Nathan’s Broad
spectrum article “Are
we seeing the death of pharmacy?” (PJ, 19 June, p764) and would
like to add some questions and comments to the debate.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is unique among fellow health care bodies
in that it is both regulatory and represents the profession. Is this
where the problem lies? Although the current Charter states that our
Society’s role is to safeguard the interests of its members, has
it effectively done this? Has the representation of the profession’s
interests and aspirations been undertaken by other bodies such as the
Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, National Pharmaceutical
Association, Company Chemists’ Association and the Guild of Healthcare
Pharmacists?
Discussion with my peers leads me to believe that the membership sees
our Society as an effective regulatory body, and that it does not adequately
promote the profession or aid its members in achieving our aspirations.
The acid test of the value that the members place on our Society is this:
would they be members, if membership was not a compulsory requirement
for practice?
I do not believe that there is any professional pharmacist who does not
doubt that we must put patients first. However, we also need to have
effective professional leadership and an organisation that can lobby
on our behalf to benefit patients and our customers: a body that can
unify our diverse practices and voices.
What are the choices, assuming our Society continues to have a dual regulatory
and professional role? Should the Charter change? Object 3 — safeguarding
the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy — is
not sustainable, contrary to the interests of the public and conflicts
with the regulatory role. If this happened, would the membership notice
any difference? Has our Society been effective in promoting our professional
interests, aspirations and expansion of professional roles?
Is the alternative that the regulatory and professional responsibilities
are separated, with the regulatory responsibility devolving to another
body, such as the Health Professions Council? If the two roles were separated,
what would happen? Pharmacists would have to register with the regulatory
body, but would we remain members of the professional body? The answer
would depend on the perceived value of this professional body. If it
were seen to be effective in the same way as the British Medical Association
or the Royal College of Nursing, membership would be high. There is another
question: could such a professional body represent the diversity of professional
practice and members’ interests? It is possible. Within the BMA,
for example, there are special interest groups representing consultants,
general practice and junior doctors (which, incidentally has achieved
much in the regulation of junior doctors’ hours).
We have achieved our current sorry state of affairs because of the members
of our Society feel disenfranchised. How do we engage them? Can one body,
with regulatory and professional responsibilities, truly exist without
conflicts of interest arising? If they do arise which responsibility
will be paramount?
Michael Pettit
Brighton, East Sussex
I do not want my professional destiny decided by the HPC
From Mr P. J. Walker, MRPharmS
Your leading article “A Council in crisis” (PJ, 12 June,
p726) is a significant understatement. The behaviour of the Save Our
Society group since its victory in the recent Council elections has now
put the entire profession’s reputation on the line.
There was an opportunity for members of the group to demonstrate to the
vast majority of the profession that they had the overall interests of
the profession at heart, by focusing fully on developing the professional
role of pharmacy. Instead what happens is that they oust all the Officers
and, in so doing, alienate the Privy Council nominees and destroy much
needed continuity. They have shown their true colours.
Gill Hawksworth has been an exemplary President over the past year, working
tirelessly, trying to unite the profession. She has worked with some
success to improve communication to the membership. She has always demonstrated
loyalty to the profession. She did not deserve such treatment.
The election of the seven SOS candidates was by only 14 per cent of the
membership — the group needs to be mindful of this.
In the recent High Court case the judge’s decision could not have
been clearer — the Council acted entirely properly in the way that
it took forward the petition for the new Charter and in addition he awarded
cost against the litigants. The group has indicated that they will go
to appeal — they must be very rich indeed or do they have a plan
to spread the costs to the rest of us? We will need to be vigilant in
the coming months.
As Mr Justice Park said “the world has moved on”, and all
of us need to fully understand the implications for the profession. The
Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals will be all too
keen to absorb pharmacy if the new Council is hell bent on demonstrating
pharmacists’ interests ahead of the public interest.
“So what?”, you may say, but I for one do not want my professional
destiny decided by the Health Professions Council. We must ensure that
the profession of pharmacy continues to be self-regulating. This will
only occur if the new Council puts behind it all past differences, the
threat of further court action and stops the in-fighting. It must send
a clear message to the membership and, importantly, to the outside world
that it is acting for the profession in the public interest.
Peter J. Walker
Chief Executive Officer,
Boots Pharmacists’ Association
A proposal that will give clarity and a democratic path
From Mr M. A. Walker, MRPharmS
I proposed a motion, called the “Members’ petition”,
at this year’s annual general meeting. It was not submitted on
behalf of the Save Our Society group. I researched the subject and wrote
the wording without assistance from SOS or its legal advisers. So the
implication of Alan Nathan’s Broad
spectrum piece (PJ, 19 June,
p764) is incorrect.
The SOS group has become the focus of the discontent with the Society
and it is my belief that the members’ unhappiness is much wider
than Dr Nathan states.
The following statement by Dr Nathan: “If the new Council also
tries to renegotiate the regulatory set-up around a revised Charter that
gives primacy to the profession’s over the public interest, the
Government may decide to take pharmacy regulation away from the Society
and put it under the control of the HPC”, is helpful since it starts
to crystallise the choice before pharmacists. That is: do you want a
professional body which puts you first or not. It is this question which
needs to be decided and not the scaremongering which I believe Dr Nathan
has propagated in his article.
In contrast, Jonathan Buisson (PJ, 19 June, p765) lays out a proposal
that will give clarity and a democratic path for the discussion on the
Charter, Byelaws and Section 60 Order. I trust that the Council and the
Department of Health will heed Mr Buisson’s advice.
Mark Walker
Oxford
Reposition the deck chairs on the Titanic
From Professor G. Buckton, FRPharmS
I can honestly say that the PJ of 19 June was the most depressing issue
of The Journal that I have ever seen. From the Broad
spectrum (p764) “Are
we seeing the death of pharmacy”, to the Letters pages and then to
the report on the
Council meeting. It is abundantly clear that the profession
is in a difficult situation and that can give no one any pleasure. It is
also clear that we cannot turn the clock back, so it makes no sense to
debate how we ended up where we are now. It is, however, vital to be careful
about how we move forward. At our most optimistic we have to view the current
situation as an opportunity.
With respect to regulation, the letter
from Jim Smith (p777) makes it abundantly
clear (again) what is required. There is no getting away from the reforms
that need to be made and no getting away from the fact that they are needed.
We will all have looked at the criticism in Which? and while we all want
to deny it, the fact is that not all experiences of pharmacy practice are
as most of us would like them to be. It is important to see that all standards
of practice are as high as those which are now best practice. Over and
above the fact that the Government will enforce change, we have to be honest
and say that there is a need for it.
Regarding the Council itself, the opportunity here should be for the new
Council to make sure that future Councils are constituted in the best possible
way, to ensure that our future is bright. Despite the fact that the Save
our Society campaign has worked for the current incumbents I would hope
that they can reflect on the fact that single issue voting is not the best
way forward for future stability.
Despite saying that we should not reflect on how we got to where we are,
I believe that some Council members of the past have been there to show
interest only in issues that benefit the working conditions of a single
sector and, perhaps, have been less interested in the wider issues that
face the profession. I fear the profession suffers if the entire Council
is not committed to the cause of the profession in general. Surely there
is merit in constructing a Council for the future in which there is a guaranteed
balance and considered debate. Future Councils should be drawn from lay
and professional members, as well as from all sectors of the profession,
so that industrialists and academics get a place alongside those from community
and hospital. Future Councils should be constructed, so that their members
will see the widest possible picture, and position the profession, so that
it is a major lobbying force in all areas that are important to all the
membership. To do so may take us a long way towards dealing with issues
that will affect us all in the future. These issues include those raised
by A. T. (Sandy) Florence in his letter to The Journal (29 May, p671):
the future of science as an underpinning platform for our profession and
the prospect of many graduates from new schools of pharmacy having been
taught science with less of a pharmacy context.
Although I see these things as vital for the future, others reading this
letter will not, and that is exactly why there should be a balance in the
body that leads our profession. Perhaps I should state that I have no ambition
to stand for Council, so this is not an election platform.
Without making any judgement on the previous, or the new Council, and the
past or new President, it is clear that we need wisdom in the next few
months. Wisdom and considered thought are difficult when emotions are running
high, but the options are either to put the recent past behind us and build
a structure that can take us all forward, or to reposition the deck chairs
on the Titanic.
Graham Buckton
Head of Department of Pharmaceutics
School of Pharmacy
University of London |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal