To stay on the Register …
This week the Privy Council has approved the proposed changes to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists that mean that pharmacists will have to decide whether or not they are practising
or non-practising (p833). To coincide with this announcement, a leaflet produced by the Society is being distributed with this issue of The
Journal explaining the differences between practising and non-practising and what the new retention form will look like. In addition, we are publishing a News
feature covering the issue (p809-10).
As regular readers of The Journal will be aware, there have been many
letters complaining about the loss of special rates for retired pharmacists
and those who previously have declared they work part-time. Some of these
part-time pharmacists have been threatening to leave the Register completely
even though they still have the opportunity to hang up their pestles
and mortars and move to the non-practising Register. Some retired pharmacists
have also said that they will leave the Register (although not this year,
now, but next, once they have voted in the new-style Council next year).
How many of these will actually convert their threats into reality remains
to be seen and an accurate figure will not be known for some months.
It is human nature to resent paying for something that gives no immediate
pleasure: most people, at some level, resent paying their taxes, their
mortgages or their utility bills but they mostly pay them without a quibble,
unless they believe a mistake has been
made.
At the other end of the scale we happily pay for things we really want
(provided we can afford them). Many people will have spent thousands
of pounds on a car, hundreds on a holiday and more than £50 a ticket
on a show or a sporting event if they really want to go. They may ask
for reductions or special deals but if they have no control over the
price, they either pay or do without.
Payment of retention fees to the Society falls somewhere in the middle
of these two extremes. Membership does not give immediate pleasure; for
many it is a necessary evil like paying taxes; others seem to treat it
like they would a club.
Maybe retired members do have a special case and, after a life-time of
service, should expect to pay a reduced fee, but it should be set at
a realistic level. For many years their fees have been subsidised by
the rest of the profession and the current fee barely covers half the
cost of producing and sending out The Journal. Even the non-practising
fee for 2005 (£46) is less than buying a Sunday newspaper for a
year.
The Journal hopes that those threatening to leave the profession will
think again — and not just for 2005.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal