| · Shipman inquiry
· Amlodipine
· The profession
· The Charter
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Charter
Use your vote
From Mr C. Ranshaw, FRPharmS
May I applaud the Council on arriving at a draft Charter that has been
sent out to the members seeking approval by postal ballot.
This is obviously the result of sensitive negotiations and a lot of hard
work for all those concerned. The Privy Council agreed to put on hold
the Charter petition allowing for minor alterations. The timetable for
the Section 60 Order fortuitously slipped allowing time for this and
time for a postal ballot.
This must therefore mean that substantially the original petition was
almost satisfactory and we must thank some honourable pharmacists, members
of Council (past and present), Officers and others who participated in
the process for their contribution and all their hard work. It would
be unfortunate, indeed, if history wrongly attributed this draft Charter
only to the present Council’s deliberations.
It is easy for people with a great deal of energy to define themselves
as being against something, giving a sense of identity and fellowship.
It is now time to move on from that negativity and for all of us to show
that we care about our profession.
Too often I read of pharmacists complaining that the Society “never
does anything for me”, when what they should be saying and asking
is “what can I do for my profession?”. You can vote! I would
not dream of suggesting how to vote, but we must all use the vote that
the opportunity of a ballot has given us. A massive return on the ballot
will send a clear message that we are a strong profession and that this
is our greatest asset — an asset built by generations of pharmacists
over the past 160 years, an asset that cannot be measured in pounds and
pence.
The Charter is a high level enabling document to allow the Society to
fulfil its functions over the next decades. I firmly believe in representative
democracy and the Council is our democratically elected representative
executive that must be free to act within the objects and powers of the
Charter. It is now up to you to give them that freedom and that mandate.
Colin Ranshaw
Barry,
Vale of Glamorgan
Let us hope nothing has been omitted
From Professor H. McNulty, FRPharmS
I am pleased that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council has
collectively agreed the Charter revisions and that past presidents support
it. The revised Charter is much better for spending just two extra days
on it after six months in purdah. However, the whole process has been
most unsatisfactory, since last October we had the previous version with
five weeks’ consultation and no local discussion. Now nine months
later we have to vote on a final version that is untested and not discussed
beyond Council. This is our only chance to get the Charter right for
the profession for the next 30 to 50 years and it is easy for things
to have been missed or not fully thought through in a pressurised Council
meeting.
I have already voted “yes” as we have no real option because
of the threats hanging over this process —
not an ideal situation but perhaps the best of a bad job. My vote, however,
does not mean I fully agree with the Charter wording and I have sent
further comments on the need to improve the wording of the objects to
the Society. I hope there may still be a chance to clarify this version
to remove unnecessary restrictions, convoluted sentences and maybe to
add or remove a few words that would improve governance. We need to clarify
what we mean by the term “pharmacy”, as dictionaries refer
only to “preparing and dispensing of drugs” when our role
is much wider than that now. In my past experience, the Government can
be persuaded if there is scope for further improvement that will not
change overall meanings, so I do hope we will at least try. More radically,
perhaps why should we not also lead and develop “other persons” — surely
that is fundamental to good clinical governance and a risky omission?
They could still have their own representative body or bodies within the overall
framework.
Omissions, errors or ambiguity in wording can have unforeseen consequences
and could lead to litigation. For those who do not think this will affect them,
well it can and has. The too successful North British branch was closed down
when the Society was allowed to do so because of the omission of reference
to the branch in the then Charter. This happened in 1885, 32 years after the
branch was formed (PJ, 22 September 2001, p385 PDF (145K)).
It is not just what is in the Charter, but what may have been omitted that
could come back to haunt our successors. I hope those who have been involved
in this process over the past two years will not have to repent at leisure,
when a few weeks of constructive discussion at some time in the past nine months
might have produced a much better and forward-thinking document.
Howard McNulty
Visiting Professor
University of Strathclyde
A case of mistiming?
From Mr L. M. Hurst, MRPharmS
At around this time last year (PJ, 21 June 2003, p859), I pointed out
that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s final roadshow on “Fit
for the future” was in danger of being hijacked by the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee, which had chosen the same evening for
its own opening roadshow on the new contract. The PSNC, to its credit,
acknowledged this mistiming by arranging an additional date.
Do we now have a further mistiming in the Charter programme itself? I
trust not. We have been asked by the Society to give a final yes or no
to a set of Council proposals before 20 August, while at the same time
being invited by the President to submit comments which, it transpires,
will not be considered until the Council’s September meeting. There
is no spot on the ballot paper to record any concerns. I happen to believe
that the redraft seems workable but could someone tell me what restrictions
a “final” yes majority would place on any comments that the
Council would thereafter be permitted to consider. Fine-tuning can make
all the difference to outcome. It would be a shame if the process hijacked
valid comment.
Larry Hurst
Princes Risborough,
Buckinghamshire
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
The result of the ballot on the draft Charter will be
reported to the Council at its meeting in September, together with
points
made by members on the draft. However, as the President
has explained (PJ, 24 July, p128), this is a vote, not a consultation. We have
already consulted extensively with the membership and others, and
important changes have been made to the various drafts in response
to the feedback received.
There might be technical or typographical issues to be addressed,
and the Council would also have to consider any amendments that
might be required by the Privy
Council, should the draft meet with the members’ approval. Otherwise, the
draft circulated with the ballot papers should be considered as final and it
is the membership’s decision as to whether or not it should go forward
to the Privy Council. |
Disinclined to support the Council
From Mr C. Payne, MRPharmS
Enclosed with this week’s Journal (31 July) was a printed message
from the Society’s Council urging me to vote in favour of the new
draft Royal Charter. I believe that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has
done everything in its power to make life as difficult and stressful for
independent contractors as possible. So I am disinclined to support the
Council in any way. I would urge all members to think carefully before
voting, and not simply acquiesce to the Council’s wishes.
Conrad Payne
Ely, Cambridgeshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal