| · New contract
· Medicines management
· Registration examination
· Levothyroxine
· Hiccups
· Prescription pricing
· IT
· Personal control
· Control of entry
· Supermarket pharmacies
· Retention fees
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
Branch and regional network will be adversely affected
From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS
Although reserves and fees were on the agenda of the branch and regional
secretaries’ meeting on 13 October there was insufficient time
for the thorough debate the subject warranted.
Although I have no quarrel with the decision to have a practising and
non-practising register I have a major disagreement with the proposed
fee structure, particularly since it affects retired members who no longer
practice. Bruce Rhodes (PJ, 30 October, p643), with his usual eloquence,
has pointed out that the fee for retired members will rise to over £100
in a few years — a five-fold increase on today’s fee and
just as hurtful for being phased in.
I have no doubt that a large number of those so affected will leave the
Register and this, I believe, will have a significant adverse affect
on the branch and regional network. Many retired members such as me still
serve in a number of ways. The loss of this contribution will be a major
blow to the system.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council and the Privy Council
already know my views and I am clear about the way ahead for me. If the
proposed fee for retired members goes ahead I will stay on the Register
for one more year simply so that my vote will count in electing our new
Council — a matter of some importance. After that my links with
a body I have served for over 50 years will be severed, to quote Bruce
Rhodes, “with great sadness”.
Bill Brookes
South Cheshire Branch
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Half a cake is better than no cake
From Mr M. Samson, MRPharmS
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society presumably wants more money. In its wisdom
it increases the retention fee for its retired non-practising members substantially — the
members respond by not paying the fees so the Society receives less, rather
than more, money. Does this make sense?
Furthermore, it loses not only the money for the coming year, but for all
of the future years those members would have paid had they remained on
the Register. Surely half a cake is better than no cake. Therefore, why
not have a retention fee of, say, £25 per annum for all retired non-practising
members and everybody will be happy?
Michael Samson
Worthing, West Sussex |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal