| · Personal control
· Cholesterol testing
· Charitable donations
· Returned medicines
· Dispensing
· The profession
· The Society
· The Charter
· Retention fee
Letters to the Editor
|
The Charter
An anomaly in the new Charter
From Mr A. Pothecary, MRPharmS
After reading Calum
Polwart’s comments (PJ, 25 September, p418) on the
proposed retention fee structure, and particularly those relating to
the 60-day consultation period required of the Council if it wishes
to change the Byelaws, I noticed a possible anomaly with the new Charter.
In the issue of the PJ that detailed the Council’s main proposed
revisions to the draft new Charter (PJ, 10 July, p68) it is stated that one of the revisions
was to include “a requirement that any new category of membership should
be subject to the members’ approval”. This is most definitely a
good idea and should help to protect the Society in the future, if the new
Charter is granted.
However, it appears that there is nothing in either Charter that prevents the
Council from reducing the categories of membership, without the approval of
the members, as they propose to do from 1 January 2005. The deluge of letters
received by The Journal over the past few weeks is probably just the
tip of the iceberg as far as this matter is concerned.
I urge all members who have concerns over the proposed changes to the membership
structure to write to the Secretary of the Council, as I shall be doing, to
ensure that the Council is made aware of these concerns. I am certain there
will be an exodus of part-time pharmacists from the Register over the next
couple of years, and this is likely to cause great harm to the Society and
the profession. It seems strange that the Council members who were elected
under the banner of “Save Our Society” should permit this change,
which seems at great variance with their previously declared ethos.
Perhaps if the Council does not listen, the members will have to call a special
general meeting.
Andrew Pothecary
Jersey, Channel Islands
Whose Charter is it?
From Mr J. A. S. Buisson, MRPharmS
Why should the Royal Pharmaceutical Society bother having a Royal Charter
if important parts of it are going to be written and rewritten by the
Departments for Health (PJ, 25 September, p445)
whatever the members say? We might as well just have a new Pharmacy Act.
The membership has, after much bad grace, had its chance to approve its own
self-governing Charter, covering both the dual roles of regulation and representation.
Now a safeguard inserted at the members’ request to (as Hassan Argomandkhah
aptly put it) “prevent the Council going back on something approved by
Special Resolution without a further Special Resolution” are to be stripped
out because civil servants at the Departments of Health are unhappy with them.
This safeguard captures the nub of why there was such an argument about the
new Charter. The current Charter contains a provision (Article 20) for amendments
via a special general meeting. Fearing that it would not convince the members
at such an SGM, the Council set out to avoid this route on the pretext of having “a
new Charter”. The Journal has been littered with the results of this “don’t
bother the members’ pretty little heads” attitude, hence provision
against this happening again.
This has been called the “members’ Charter” (PJ,
17 July, p74). Not
all members work in, for or with the National Health Service. Many no longer
work. Their rights are being overruled by civil servants who, in my opinion,
are influencing parts of the Charter that relate to professional representation,
not regulation.
I am glad that the Council felt sufficiently emboldened to put up resistance
to this disgraceful amendment. The reinstatement of this provision is urgently
needed before anyone at Lambeth claims that they have secured “a members’ Charter”.
Jonathan Buisson
Hook, Hampshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal