| · Personal control
· Cholesterol testing
· Charitable donations
· Returned medicines
· Dispensing
· The profession
· The Society
· The Charter
· Retention fee
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fee
Overtones of ageism and sexism
From Mr C. McGovern, MRPharmS
I found your leading
article of 25 September (p406) to be biased, poorly
argued and, like your description of part-time pharmacists, revolting.
Why, for instance, should part-time pharmacists require more continuing
professional development than their fellows? Do I detect an invidious
distinction here? Do you mean that full-time workers gain more experience?
If so what is your point in denigrating this experience as “no
longer everything”? Was it ever everything? If so why has it suddenly
altered in line with the Council’s desire to raise
revenue?
There is also a suggestion that some pharmacists may leave the register
because “they are only prepared to practise on today’s terms”.
This is grossly offensive to a generation of pharmacists who have seen
the profession through the changes and exigencies of the past 50 years.
The real reason why pharmacists may leave the register is the overbearing
manner in which these changes are being implemented.
One can sympathise with the Council in that someone must be at or nearing
retirement age when policies such as CPD are introduced on a mandatory
basis. However when the Council, in a remarkable display of its customary
tact and sensitivity, links this with a swingeing and selective increase
in fees one can understand the feeling of being pointedly shown the door.
I use the word “selective” because the abolition of the part-time
fee creates an effective increase of around 130 per cent for part-timers
compared with 25 per cent foisted on others. Is it not realised that
some pharmacists may consider it unacceptable to opt for the “inactive” register?
They have worked for many years and made their contribution in terms
of fees. In retirement they wish to continue to exercise their skills
for the benefit of their colleagues, as well as for the public. Does
it escape the Council’s attention that this will not bring them
anything like the emoluments of their previous employment? Over many
years they have seen their predecessors enjoy a reduced fee in recognition
of this simple economic fact, which seems outwith the grasp of those
now in power.
Two groups, part-time women pharmacists and those at or near retirement,
will bear the brunt of this change. I do not like this trend with its
overtones of ageism and sexism. Mr
Melnick (PJ, 25 September, p420) points
to specific instances of the Council’s dismissive attitude towards
those getting on in years. All this, together with the tone and content
of your leading article, suggests a prima facie case may exist for requesting
an investigation into the reasons underlying these proposals to determine
whether or not such predispositions may be detectable within our Society.
Campbell McGovern
Glasgow
Benevolent Fund should pay
From Mr A. F. Huntley, MRPharmS
I am looking for an equitable outcome concerning the retention fees furore.
Bearing in mind how much older members of the Society have contributed
to its ongoing stability, and that of associated funds of said Society,
I suggest that now is the time for members over 60 years of age (and I
am now in my eighth decade) to request, yea even demand, that our Benevolent
Fund pays for our fees until such time as we shuffle off this mortal coil,
and the Register.
A. F. Huntley
Bristol |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal