| · Registration
exam (2)
· Pharmacist prescribing
· Agenda for change
· New contract (3)
· Retention fees (2)
· Statins
· Levothyroxine
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Retention fees
Quid pro quo?
From Mrs P. G. Munro, MRPharmS, and Mr M. H. Munro, MRPharmS
On 16 January this year I received a charming letter from the then president
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Gillian Hawksworth, on behalf of
herself and other members of Council congratulating my achievement of
having completed 50 years on the Register. She hoped I was enjoying good
health and would continue to do so for many more years.
This letter was not unexpected since my wife received a similar letter
on 1 November 2002. However, the then president, Marshall Davies, ended
his letter: “I do hope that you are enjoying good health and that
we will see your name on the Register for many more years!” An
interesting difference.
We have over 100 years of service between us, including acting as hosts
in 1959 at the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Bristol and, in my
case, being chairman of the Bath branch (1959), secretary of the Tunbridge
Wells branch (1962), vice-chairman (1971) and chairman of the Weald of
Kent branch (1972) — all unpaid officers. You might have expected
pharmacists who are long retired and non-practising to be exempt retention
fees instead of paying “further significant increases over the
next few years”.
The Council obviously wants us wrinklies off the Register. Let them not
forget they too will be in our position in a few years time even after
all their tireless, unpaid and dedicated work for our profession. The
difference may be that they will have to work until they are 70 to get
their state pension.
Quid pro quo?
Pam and Michael Munro
Tunbridge Wells,
Kent
Smaller increase should have been imposed
From Mr M. K. Astbury, MRPharmS
I am writing this letter in support of the membership and of the letters
from Sultan Dajani (PJ, 30 October, p642) and Maurice
Hickey (ibid p643).
I was one of the Council members who voted against the increase in retention
fees — you would not expect anything less from Joe Bloggs. No one
can deny that there are insufficient reserves supporting the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s finances and I understand the reasons why the majority
of the Council voted for the increase but I believe a smaller increase
should have been imposed at this time. A review of the Society’s
spending could then have been conducted. Following this review the membership
could have been informed of any large increases or fee structural changes
on the horizon. The present proposal will have most impact on hospital
pharmacists, locum pharmacists, part-time pharmacists, retired pharmacists
and overseas pharmacists.
Bill Brookes (PJ, 6 November, p683) made a number of important comments,
one of which was the importance of being able to vote for the new Council
next year. I am concerned about what the future may hold. The abilities
that the present three lay members bring to the Council are great and
varied. They make good contributions to the Society. However, they will
tell you themselves that they are on the Council to represent the public.
This means, on an issue like this, 12 out of 20 (60 per cent) elected
pharmacists (President not voting) are required to pass a motion in the
present Council. If you think that is worrying, consider that in the
new Council, 15 out of 16 (94 per cent) elected pharmacists (President
not voting) will be required to pass a motion.
Martin Astbury
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal