| · Dispensing
· Natural therapies
· Peak flow meters
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Wrong impression
From Mr D. Simpson, FRPharmS
I understand that The Journal did not have sight of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s revised draft Charter when it went to press last week.
This may explain why you seem to believe (PJ, 10 July, p40) that nothing
much has changed, compared with the previous draft. Perhaps I may be
allowed to emphasise some key differences.
The previous version provided for members to be consulted on any new
categories of membership. This one goes further by requiring members’ approval
of new categories of membership.
Membership approval is not required only on this matter. Also under the
new version it is required for changes in the composition of the Council.
Furthermore, the ability of members to have their say on such key issues
is greatly enhance by the introduction within the terms of the Charter
of balloting as a means of testing their opinion.
The previous version was silent on the issue of bodies to advise the
Council on matters of professional leadership and development. The new
wording specifically provides for the establishment of “bodies
to advance professional leadership”. This paves the way for bodies
to be set up, possibly on a national basis, to seek out and represent
the professional aspirations of pharmacists.
The previous version amended and weakened Object 3 in the current Charter.
This is a key object, and one by which members set great store. It requires
the Society “to maintain the honour and safeguard and promote the
interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy”.
The new version of the Charter restores this object (with “the
members” substituted by “pharmacists”) and places it
higher in the list as Object 2.
Another significant change is that professional leadership has been linked
with regulation in new Object 3, which is concerned with “promoting
and protecting the well-being of the public”. This shows that the
Council believes that there is a public interest element in having a
well-led profession as well as in regulation.
The previous version of the Charter was rushed to the Privy Council office
last December without the members even knowing for certain what was in
it. This time, members are not only to be told what the new Charter contains,
they are to be given the chance to say whether they approve of it or
not.
As for those seeking to belittle what the new Council has achieved in
agreeing this new draft charter, I could perhaps paraphrase the memorable
comment of Mandy Rice-Davies: they would, wouldn’t they.
Douglas Simpson
Member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
Beckenham,Kent
| |
Last week we reported on the information on Charter developments
that was provided to us at the time. As promised, the full new
draft Charter together with a explanatory commentary is published
as a
centre pull-out (PDF 65K) in this week’s issue.
— EDITOR
|
If it ain't broke ...
From Dr G. B. Drummond, MRPharmS
Robert Blyth is to be congratulated on his article
on regulation (PJ,
3 July, p17). He describes perfectly the dichotomy of the functions of
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society — disparate, yet compatible. Why
should we be misled into creating a “clone” of any other,
and inferior, regulatory body?
I was deeply touched by his reference to my late brother Charles, whose
insistence on the independence of the Statutory Committee is illustrated
by the incident described.
Another crisis, as I well remember, was precipitated by the position
of more than one member of the Statutory Committee whose simultaneous
membership of Council proved an embarrassment: how to “sell” to
the Council an unpopular, though correct, decision reached by the Statutory
Committee? On the grounds that no man can serve two masters, the obvious
solution to this conflict of interests was to relinquish one or the other
office. This was agreed and the judicial integrity of the Statutory Committee
was assured.
As for transparency, the proceedings of the Statutory Committee, like
the Courts, are open to the public, and over some 10 years or more I
was present as an official observer at every meeting. My abiding impression
was of impartiality and objectivity, serving alike the interests of pharmacists
and of the public.
“
If it ain’t broke ...”
G. B. Drummond
Hull
Window of opportunity?
Ms R. J. Hogarth, MRPharmS
A statement issued by the previous president of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, Gill Hawksworth (PJ, 10 July, p67) claims that the past president
and vice-president and treasurer had proposed a way forward at the last
Council meeting just before they were replaced — a window of opportunity
to save the Charter.
I cannot claim to be an expert in pharmacy politics, but I was strongly
of the impression that the window of opportunity had been created not
by them, but by the Save Our Society campaigners who had managed to put
the previous Charter petition “on ice” through their legal
action and then by getting all their seven Council candidates elected.
From what I can tell, the previous bunch will have been highly embarrassed
by the way that the SOS group have managed to make such good progress
with a much better Charter proposal. Not only that, the doom and gloom
merchants who have been warning that the end is nigh if we continue to
struggle will also have egg on their faces.
It a good job that there are still a few members prepared to take affirmative
action and those who have been proved wrong should simply own up. From
time to time, we all make mistakes, although not perhaps mistakes of
such monumental proportions.
Rebecca Hogarth
Fochabers, Moray
Journal editorial has left me puzzled
From Mr J. Gentle, MRPharmS
Your Leading article entitled “Game, set and match?” (PJ,
10 July, p40) has left me puzzled. However, it is possible to fathom
a probable explanation.
In 2003, when the Save Our Society campaign managed to get three of its
candidates elected to the Council, you claimed that SOS had performed
poorly. In January 2004, when the SOS campaign instigated its legal proceedings
you were critical and claimed that only the lawyers could win. However,
it was clear that the proceedings could yet stop the Charter being given
the Government’s assent so long as the balance of power on the
Council could be changed in the May elections. In April 2004, you allowed
letters criticising the SOS Council candidates to be published, knowing
that the candidates could not defend themselves during election time.
Despite that, all seven SOS candidates were elected and succeeded in
changing the balance of power on the Council. However, you were still
not moved to say anything positive about this unprecedented achievement.
Now we are coming to the end of what has obviously been a well-planned
campaign: a campaign which has produced a Charter, the like of which
the former Council told us would be impossible to deliver, a plan backed
by the three Privy Council nominated members of the Council, a plan which
has also given us the referendum that the former Council said we could
not have. The inertia created has persuaded the Government to give concessions
because it has now come to understand the political realities in pharmacy — something
that the former Council failed to address. Despite all of these things,
in your editorial last week you claim that it is the former Council,
many of whom are no longer Council members, who have somehow won through
in the end.
Surely, this can only be explained by the suggestion that you have some
kind of a problem with the SOS campaign and that this is seriously colouring
your editorial judgement.
John Gentle
Shrewsbury
| |
Mr Gentle has made some assertions which cannot go unchallenged.
In May 2003, we did not say that the SOS campaign performed poorly.
We stated a fact which was: “Only three of the seven candidates
fielded gained seats — despite a well-organised (and not inexpensive)
campaign on their behalf” (PJ, 24 May 2003, p708). We do not
believe we were critical of the SOS campaign in January 2004. However,
we did say that its legal action should make all members of the Society
ask themselves questions about what outcome would best serve the
interests of pharmacists, pharmacy and the public (PJ, 31 January,
p108). The lawyers have won, to the tune of many thousands of pounds.
We did not publish letters criticising SOS candidates in the recent
Council election but criticising the canvassing that was being undertaken
on their behalf. At the same time we published a statement from an
SOS spokesman pointing out that the candidates had agreed not to
engage in canvassing (PJ, 24 April, p495). After this year’s
election, we said the the SOS members of the Council “certainly
hold the stronger hand” and that the new Council “may
find it has a challenging job”. We also called on future Councils
not to ignore the wishes of the members (PJ, 22 May, p628). Later,
we referred to “the overwhelming success of the SOS group” in
securing all seven places in the Council election (PJ, 19 June, p754).
|
A somewhat simplistic view by The Journal
From Mr S. K. Bagga, MRPharmS
I would like to take issue with your simplistic (some would say biased)
view of the outcome of the deliberations of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Council on the revised Charter, and comparing it to a
tennis match. I rather think that, if any game was being played, it was
more like chess, where you may sacrifice one of your pawns before calling
checkmate.
If you care to read the manifesto of each of the seven Save Our Society
candidates at this year’s election, you will find that we did not
pledge to deliver a two-board model, but that was our preferred option.
If we still had the time available which the old Council used to try
to force an unpalatable Charter down the throats of the membership, that
option might have even been achievable. You failed to point out that
the revised Charter does allow the Council to establish boards for this
purpose (representation) and to delegate authority to them.
In truth, the SOS Council members and their supporters must be congratulated
for working tirelessly with the rest of the elected members, staff and
advisers to review the Charter, and make the July version much closer
to the aspirations of our members without damaging our public accountability.
The new Charter puts a stronger Object 3 above the new regulatory object
as the new Object 2 (pledge number 4 at election). It places important
checks and balances on the exercise of the powers of the future Council,
whereby the membership will have the final say on any major constitutional
change and sale of assets. Most importantly in the case of any winding-up
of the Society, it will now be the members who decide where its assets
are placed within any new pharmacy body.
The regulatory object in the revised Charter has been rebalanced with
the addition of professional leadership roles and has also been relegated
to Object 3 after professional representation (pledges 2 and 3). We will
now have the opportunity to vote for a new Charter which is a far superior
document to the one that left Lambeth last December without the membership’s
approval: a document which is more pharmacist-friendly and reflects the
demands of the membership for their democratic rights (pledge 1).
We hope that the members will use this hard-fought-for democratic right
and return their ballot papers in their thousands.
Shiv Bagga
Member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
London E6
| |
We did not suggest that the achievement of a two-board model was
an election pledge by the Save Our Society candidates, only that it
was a
preferred option, as Mr Bagga himself acknowledges.
— EDITOR
|
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal