|
After 30 years on the register, you can, I hope, forgive a little reflection on some changes seen during that time. I expect, like me, you sometimes wonder why on earth you became a pharmacist. There were never, as far
as I am aware, any other pharmacists in my family so there was no family
pressure or history repeating itself. I had enjoyed chemistry at school,
but thought a degree in that subject alone would be far too narrow.
Pharmacy did seem an attractive option because it was a broad, and,
perhaps more importantly, a practical subject. A visit to any pharmacy
was accompanied by strange smells as concoctions were made and “real” dispensing
was done. But, was my becoming a pharmacist a good decision? Sufficient
to say that I am pleased to say neither of my children has followed
in my footsteps.
It was not long after securing a university place before I had serious
doubts. Before starting university I had arranged a six-week summer job
at a local pharmacy in my hometown in the midlands. No gap year in those
days! The manager was barely 10 years my senior and was already bored
with “retail” as it was called then. It was not an auspicious
start. His advice was for me to go into the pharmaceutical industry for
the variety, if nothing else.
This career advice theme was continued at university. We were advised
to pursue a career in academia, hospital pharmacy or “the industry”.
For some reason, our lecturers frowned upon the “trade” end
of pharmacy. It had a dubious image because of selling everything from
hot water bottles to cosmetics, from offering photographic services to
home brewing kits. So, in 30 years, not much has changed there then,
and must still be a major factor as to why pharmacists are not taken
particularly seriously except by themselves. The other is the continuous
bickering between various factions, which we still see with the Society’s
Council. The original
perceived advantage of the breadth of opportunity that pharmacy offered
seems to be the reason too for it to continually try to self-destruct.
So, what has gone wrong? There was a time when pharmaceutical input was
necessary. There was a need to actually prepare something, not simply
order it ready made from a “specials” unit, or pick an original
pack off a shelf. After that change an attempt was made to justify pharmacists’ existence
by placing great emphasis on knowledge and advice, on being the bare
foot — let us be blunt — second rate doctor with a limited
repertoire. Was this a good idea? — I think not. In these days
of internet access, patients come armed with too much information and
too many facts as any GP will tell you. Far better to use an information
scientist to distil facts. As for limited prescribing, the public place
more confidence in nurses for there to be many opportunities here. In
the pharmaceutical industry, which now apparently bemoans the lack of
pharmacists, a great opportunity was lost by not fighting to ensure all
Qualified Persons (who release all batches of product for sale) were
pharmacists. By allowing others to take on that role the unique knowledge
base of pharmacists became a myth.
I read a management book recently about how easy it is to place your
ladder against the wrong wall. To me that is exactly what pharmacists
have done. When the role had to change because traditional manipulative
skills were not required in the dispensary, the ladders were placed against
the information/patient advice/limited prescribing walls, and we have
been trying to climb those ill-placed ladders ever since. This is not
where pharmacists’ unique skills lay and we have been paying for
that mistake ever since.
— Contributed
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal