| · Retention fee
· Personal control
· Shipman inquiry
· BNF-C
· TCM
· Counselling
· Publishing board
· Overseas membership
· Brewers' yeast
· Bullying
Letters to the Editor
|
Overseas membership
Most of overseas membership could be lost
From Mr I. C. Nock, MRPharmS
I am a pharmacist who has been living, working and practising abroad
for decades. The new Charter, continuing professional development and
separate registers have all been skirted around in The Journal but no
specific details have yet been published on how these will affect members
working overseas. Exactly how will CPD and Section 60 affect members,
such as myself, who have dual or multiple registrations with other jurisdictions?
Well, as far as CPD goes, even the Society does not know.
A recent e-mail reply from Christine Gray, project manager, modernisation
steering group, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, explained: “This
is, of course, a matter for Government decision, informed by the views
of the Society’s Council. However, I will try to clarify what we
think will happen.”
I cannot believe this! What we think will happen? Does the Society not
take an active role and keep itself informed about matters with such
major consequences for its membership? Does not the (current) Charter
require some dedication to our welfare? And this is of major consequence
both to the overseas membership and the Society in general.
She went on to say: “An overseas member of the Society who wished
to remain on the Society’s register and to practise (whether in
GB or elsewhere) would need to be in the ‘practising’ part
of the Society’s register and to comply with CPD requirements.”
My point is that the Society has not yet decided how it is going to enable
overseas pharmacists to undertake CPD and thus remain on the British
register.
If someone who was on the “non-practising” part of the Society’s
register were to work as a pharmacist or give pharmaceutical advice,
he or she would be breaking the law and could also be subject to the
Society’s fitness to practise committees.
Why does the Society, or indeed the British Government, presume it has
worldwide powers? And what exactly is the definition of “giving
pharmaceutical advice” How the Council could support this I really
do not know.
I am extremely disappointed, both with the decisions taken and the lack
of communication to the membership about the consequences of proceeding
with such. I think the Society will lose most, if not all, of its overseas
membership.
Ian C. Nock
Hong Kong
| |
PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, and director of education
and registration, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:
The Society
has taken an active role in preparing for the implementation of
mandatory CPD. The proposed requirements for CPD included the principle
that
pharmacists who are practising should undertake CPD. The requirements
were the subject
of a consultation with the membership in March 2003. The results
were extremely positive and pharmacists’ views were reflected in
the final proposals to the Government. However, the mechanisms for
mandatory
CPD will arise from implementation of the new legislation now being
prepared by the Government. While the Society has put forward proposals
to inform
the new legislation based on the consultation, we cannot prejudge
the decisions of Government and Parliament.
The formulation of proposals for mandatory CPD did include consideration
of overseas members. The CPD framework allows a pharmacists’ CPD
to reflect the development of their personal practice, not a theoretical
GB-based model of practice. This
makes it possible for the requirements relating to mandatory CPD to apply
in the same way to overseas members as to members resident in Britain.
We intend
to provide overseas members with the same guidance on meeting these requirements
as members resident in Britain. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal