| · Pharmacy education
· St John's wort
· Dispensing
· Antimicrobial resistance
· The Conference
· NHS Confederation
· The profession
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Take a lead from the Statutory Committee model
From Mr J. R. Ferguson, FRPharmS
I write to support the main point made by Robert Blyth in his excellent
Broad spectrum article “Why wreck the Society just to satisfy a ‘one
size fits all’ regulatory policy?” (PJ, 3 July, p17). I have
asked that question several times in the past and, as yet, no satisfactory
answer has been given.
May we just remind ourselves of the current situation and how it developed.
As Mr Blyth wrote, the Statutory Committee was established by the Pharmacy
and Poisons Act of 1933. It is now a feature of the Pharmacy Act 1954,
which was, of course, going through Parliament at the same time as the
1953 Supplementary Charter was being negotiated. The 1954 Act makes it
clear that the Statutory Committee is a committee of the Society, not
of the Council. The Chairman, an experienced lawyer under the provisions
of the Act, is appointed by the Privy Council and the other members by
the Society’s Council. Any decision to remove the name of a pharmacist
from the Register has no effect unless the Chairman agrees.
Any appeal against a striking-off order lies to the High Court in England
or the Court of Session in Scotland. If there is an appeal, the 1954
Act makes it clear that the Society will be the body against which the
appeal will be made, although the “governing body” of the
Society, the Council, has played no part in the process leading to that
appeal. The civil servants of that day worked out a structure that has
stood the test of time. I know of no criticism of the disciplinary proceedings
of the Society that has been made by any government department, consumer
or patient support organisation.
In 1933 and 1954 it was the inter-relationship of the disciplinary role
of the Society and its functions as a representative professional body
that was addressed and a solution found. The solution both preserved
the integrity of the Society as a Chartered Body and ensured the public
interest was safeguarded. Now we need to find a model which ensures there
is more lay input to all the Society’s regulatory functions, not
just its disciplinary role.
Jim Smith, chief pharmacist for England, should ask why a lead cannot
be taken from the Statutory Committee model. Could not a regulatory board,
as a board of the Society rather than the Council, be established under
the Health Act Order? The constitution of that board in terms of appointees
of the government and the Council could be set out, with whatever proportion
of lay members the government deems necessary. The regulatory functions
to be exercised by the board would also be set out and it would be made
clear that, as with the Statutory Committee, the decisions of the board
would not be subject to the approval of the Council. It could also be
provided that the board would have powers to establish subgroups to make
recommendations to the board on the individual elements of regulation
such as education, entry to the profession, continuing professional development
etc.
We have some able and wise civil servants in the UK. I am certain that,
given the right brief, they could, as their predecessors did in 1933
and 1953–54, devise a model meeting both the requirements of the
Government and the wishes of the Society’s members. And Dr Smith
would have his “coherent way in which [the regulatory functions
of the Society] could be exercised other than under the authority of
the Council” (PJ, 19 June, p777).
John Ferguson
Haywards Heath,
West Sussex
We need two non-conflicting and strong bodies
From Mr C. O. Agomo, MRPharmS
The comments by T. O. O.
Banjo (PJ, 3 July, p21) concerning the progress
made by pharmacy technicians should not surprise anyone. Technicians’ unity
is as a result of their willingness to work together through a representative
association. It is not only them that are united in this way. There is
a similar pattern with firemen, rail workers, police, doctors and nurses,
to name but a few. Their associations are their voices.
Pharmacists in Britain have refused to work together as done by other
pharmacists and professions all over the world, you only hear fragments
of voices which are not binding to all. Unless we split the roles of
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society into two non-conflicting and strong
bodies, as suggested by Michael
Pettit (PJ, 26 June, p801), we face our
dear profession being taken over by pharmacy technicians in the near
future.
I am aware that the majority of employers who, surprisingly, are pharmacists
will not agree with this suggestion, because there is this unfounded
fear that a strong and binding association for pharmacists might produce
pharmacists with confrontational ideas. The truth is that the way things
are going it might be the only option left for us to survive as a profession.
Chijioke O. Agomo
London N7
Charter discussions ought to have been like Pharmacy in a New Age
From Dr N. Kometa, MRPharmS
In view of the debacle that has occurred in the drafting of the new Charter,
lessons should be learnt from one of the seismic undertakings advocated
by the leadership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in recent years that
stands out in my mind: Pharmacy in a New Age (PIANA). The leadership at
the time showed great tenacity, patience and vision. It was indeed a tremendous
concept that encouraged debate and invited input from all branches of the
profession, and will continue to be expanded and implemented for years
to come.
The idea to update the charter of the Society to reflect changes in the
modernisation of the NHS and current practice in the provision and delivery
of health care service appears to me to be still part of that undertaking.
However, the main drawback of this idea was that its implementation was
more reactionary than revolutionary. Instead of allocating sufficient time
for all sections of the profession to debate the issue and put forward
their proposals, the leadership allowed themselves to be led by the timetable
of the Department of Health in the drafting of the Section 60 Order.
It would have been visionary if the idea to update the Charter commenced
with the NHS plan, which the Government launched in 2000, since the reasoning
behind the plan was common knowledge with regards to the Kennedy report
and, later, the Shipman inquiry.
In my view, the emphasis placed in maintaining self-regulation or professionally
led regulation appears to overshadow the primacy of public interest and
the patient agenda, and their benefits to the profession, in the opinion
of the membership. This is notwithstanding the fact that that was the main
thrust behind the idea of drafting the new Charter. It is now abundantly
clear that enough advocacy should have been given to these areas and communicated
at length to all branches of the profession in a PIANA-style debating forum.
In practice, the Society has done a relatively good job in its dual role
of regulation and professional representation as demonstrated by the Government’s
non-interference in the affairs of the profession. The current problem
therefore appears to lie in creating a robust theoretical framework for
the dual role that will satisfy the public, the Government and the whole
membership of the profession.
Nsanyi Kometa
Hull |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal