Cutting the pharmacy cake
New Zealand may have a much smaller population than Britain (just over four million people compared with about 60 million here) and may be a long way away. However, the challenges facing the New Zealand pharmacy profession uncannily mirror what pharmacists in Britain have experienced to such a degree that we make no apologies for describing recent events on the other side of the world (News
feature pp555–6). The difference
lies in the way these challenges have been resolved — to date.
New Zealand has had its Bristol. The government decided to step in but,
instead of allowing the health professions to put their self-regulatory
houses in order, the power to self-regulate has been taken away. A new,
independent body, embracing all the health professions, has been established
to do the disciplinary job for them.
The result is that the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand, formerly
a body with a joint regulatory and professional role, has been split
in two. From it, a voluntary professional
body with representative functions
has been formed and it retains the PSNZ name. This new organisation’s
test will come on 1 January 2005 when pharmacists will have to decide
whether to join it.
Registration and regulation will be dealt with by the new Pharmacy
Council.
Disciplinary matters will be dealt with by another organisation that
is separate from pharmacy — along with the New Zealand equivalents
of the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council et
al.
In other words, the New Zealand pharmacy cake has been sliced differently
from the British one.
In a further twist to the tale, the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand — which
carries out similar functions to the National Pharmaceutical Association
and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee — is currently
discussing the possibility of joining forces with what is left of the
PSNZ to form a single representative body for pharmacists.
These parallels may not be strictly comparable to the British situation but members
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society will understand the drift.
In the week that the new Charter seems likely to be recommended for Royal Assent,
pharmacy in Britain seems set for a period of relative calm — at least
constitutionally. Over the next few years it will be of value to keep an eye
on the other side of the world. We have an unrivalled opportunity to compare
and contrast developments in both systems.
The ultimate question to be answered some 10 or more years down the line is whether
the New Zealand solution has served its public and its pharmacy profession better
or worse than the system has served the public and the profession here.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal