The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7329 p854
11 December 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 100K, Acrobat Reader

· New contract (5)
· PPRS
· Registration exam (4)
· Prescription forms
· Community pharmacy
· Male health
· Competency
· Public health
· Alcohol
· Levithyroxine
· Complementary medicine
· The register (3)
· Retention fee
· The Journal (2)

Letters to the Editor

The register

Do I get value for money?

From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS

Clare Bellingham is to be thanked for her clear and well balanced article “To practise or not: that is the question” in last week’s Journal (p809).

She sets out the issues clearly, especially with regard to fees payable by retired members. Her article makes the point that it is the aim of the Council that such members will ultimately pay one-third of the fee of practising members, ie, a rise of over 100 per cent in 2005 and soon a rise of over 500 per cent (over £100). The editorial and the Council seem to think that is a realistic level. I do not!

The point that is not addressed is whether or not I get value for money for my fee. All I get is The Journal, much of which, through no fault of yours, is no longer relevant to me, though there are some parts of interest such as the letters, obituaries and Onlooker. From me, the Society gets a regional secretary, a local branch committee member, a regular attender — and contributor — to branch representatives’ meetings and branch and regional secretaries meetings, and the fee. At least a Sunday newspaper would give me articles of relevance, and the football results.

As I have previously stated I will sign on for 2005 so that I can vote in the election for a new Council. If the other 4,358 over-60s and not practising will do the same the grey vote could be significant.

If there is no change in Council policy towards retired members then from 2006 I will have time not only to buy but to read a Sunday newspaper, and maybe one on Monday to get the Sunday football results.

Bill Brookes
South Cheshire Branch
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

It is my degree and training that counts

From Mrs M. A. Clive-Matthews, MRPharmS

It was with interest I read the leaflet attempting to define the carefully worded differences between practising and non-practising pharmacists. After 31 years in the profession I cannot, and will not, accept that I am no longer a pharmacist unless registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. It is my training and university degree, coupled with the experience gained from my career that makes me a pharmacist, not my membership of the Society, which has done nothing for me personally other than to supply me with The Pharmaceutical Journal.

To imply that such conscientious qualified professionals should no longer be trusted to know whether they are sufficiently knowledgeable to give advice is, frankly, an insult to us all.

Despite working in a “non-practising” capacity for nearly three years I have continued to maintain my membership because I did not want to lose touch with my profession. However, I now see little point in paying vast sums for little return and increasing bureaucracy. What a sorry state of affairs!

Margaret C. Matthews
Eastbourne, Sussex

Practising non-pharmacist

From Dr F. Newcombe, FRPharmS

Like many others, I do not wish to pursue formal continuing professional development or pay the higher retention fee but I do wish to continue to advise on the use of medicines. In order not to offend the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, this means I shall now withdraw from the Society and join the thousands of counter assistants throughout the country as a practising non-pharmacist.

Frank Newcombe
Loughborough, Leicestershire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Complementary medicine)
Next Topic (Retention fee)