| · Dispensing
· Levothyroxine
· CAM
· Hangovers
· CPD (2)
· The Society (2)
· The register (5)
· Retention fee (7)
Letters to the Editor
|
The register
An impossible situation
From Professor Trevor M. Jones, FRPharmS
I have been following with interest, and difficulty, the correspondence
in your columns on the new registration requirements.
I have no statutory reason to maintain my membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society but, after a lifetime of commitment to our profession (and, I
hope some would agree, being a constant ambassador for pharmacy and for
pharmacists both here and abroad), I would like to continue to be recognised
as a pharmacist and as a member of the Society.
However, the declaration that I am now being asked to sign puts me in
an impossible situation in that it demands that I declare that I “will
not work in or give advice in relation to the science of medicines”.
That I cannot do.
Beyond my role as director general of the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry, I am daily giving advice to a variety of public
and private organisations, governments, etc, on the science of medicines.
This is a central part of (i) my work on the World Health Organization
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health,
(ii) my role as chairman of several scientific advisory boards, and
(iii) my role as a trustee of a number of scientific foundations and
as a member of several boards of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies.
My profession has been generous to me over the years through the award
of the Charter gold medal and the Harrison memorial medal, in addition
to the five honorary degrees and two honorary fellowships that I have
been privileged to receive.
In addition I was particularly proud to be designated a fellow of the
Society, but I have learned from my enquiry to Lambeth this week that
if I do not sign the declaration I will be stripped of this honour.
It is clear from the correspondence in recent months that others who
have served the profession well over many years feel equally let down
by the Society. For me, as for them, it will be particularly sad not
to be able to continue to be regarded, or even refer to myself, as a
pharmacist.
Trevor Jones
Reigate,
Surrey
Returning to practice
From Mrs S. Campbell, MRPharmS
The News feature “To practise or not” (PJ, 4 December, p809)
was an interesting read.
I am expecting my second child in January 2005 and will be on maternity
leave from the end of 2004. As an NHS employee, I have the option of
extending my leave for a full year until January 2006, although I am
currently planning to return to work in September 2005.
I will be faced with a dilemma this January — to pay or not to
pay? So what are my options?
1. I can pay £256 for the privelege of working part-time for four
months of the year — knowing that it if I change my mind about
returning to work then I have effectively thrown £210 down the
drain.
2. I can pay £46 and then top-up the full fee next September, if
and when I return to work. (Is this an option? I do not know.)
3. I can choose to be neither practising nor non-practising, save my
cash for now and make a decision later in the year. (Why pay £46
a year for the PJ when you are married to a pharmacist?)
Are there any other alternatives I have missed? Is it really fair to
ask £256 for four months’ part-time work?
Sally Campbell
Huddersfield
Clarification required
From Mr I. D. Spiers, MRPharmS
Having read the Royal Pharmaceutical Society booklet on whether I am
to become a practising or non-practising pharmacist, I fall into the
non-practising category. What has not been defined is how a non-practising
pharmacist becomes practising again. How can we make important decisions
without crucial information? I ask the Society to be reasonable in giving
pharmacists a choice based on fact, not statements like “we will
tell you in due course”.
Even if it is not set in stone can someone tell me the likely path for conversion
from non-practising to practising in the future?
Ian Spiers
Birmingham
| |
ANDREW GARDNER, head of registration, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
The need for pharmacists to be able to transfer from the
non-practising to the practising section of the register was emphasised
by pharmacists who responded to the continuing professional development
consultation in March 2003. Respondents were keen to ensure pharmacists
who were returning to practice were adequately prepared.
The requirements for transfer to the practising section will be
agreed during 2005 and we expect them to come into effect in January
2006. While it is not
possible accurately to predict the outcome, the regulations are likely to require
a pharmacist who has been out of practice for more than 12 months (or is changing
sector of practice) to confirm to the Society that they have completed a period
of adequate preparation, for example, working alongside a practising colleague
for an agreed period.
If these arrangements are confirmed, a pharmacist who has been registered in
the non-practising section of the register for less than 12 months will be
able to transfer to practising status on payment of the upgrade fee (£210).
A pharmacist who returns to the register as practising or non-practising having
voluntarily retired from it will be required to pay a restoration application
fee (£125) plus the current year’s retention fee. |
Superficial and rigid definition
From Ms A. B. Prasad, FRPharmS
It is with a Kafka-like sense of despair that I have studied the Council’s
narrow, superficial and rigid definition, of a “non-practising
pharmacist”.
As a retired pharmacist, I rarely “counsel”, but must confess
that I occasionally pass remarks on topics such as the importance of
childhood vaccination, the value of antimalarial prophylaxis, the dubious
merits of “cough and cold cures” and the potential hazards
of some herbal remedies. Moreover, I occasionally provide editors with
suggestions on the content of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
publications, such as the British National Formulary. Comments on the
editorial content of the Society’s publications cannot easily be
dissociated from pharmaceutical insight.
Rather than use my own professional judgement as to whether or not it
is appropriate for me to comment on the above matters, I shall soon need
to pick my way through a minefield of Council-generated taboos.
I am (by and large) proud of my profession and trust that I have served
it well. It saddens me to think that I may soon have to retire from the
Register in order to retain my freedom of speech and judgement.
Anne Prasad
London NW3
Can the profession afford to haemorrhage?
From Mr B. G. Spencer, FRPharmS
Your editorial (PJ, 4 December, p802), which says that you hope members
will think twice before deciding to leave the profession, and not just
for 2005, is clearly sincere, tinged I dare say with a hint of self interest
at the prospect of losing a significant proportion of the membership,
and thus readership and potential income from advertisers.
It is to be expected that given a situation of pretty radical change
within any group and its membership, many of whom resent having to pay
compulsorily in any case, that they and others will consider their positions.
Does the loyalty of having belonged and supported a profession for a
working lifetime, as many members have, weigh heavily to counterbalance
the affront at being so cursorily sidelined or marginalised, as the new
edicts from Lambeth have done so effectively?
We live in an age of blame, litigation and in many cases rancour, much
of which has been imported from our transatlantic cousins’ lifestyle.
We are also not blame-free as a profession, since there are many pharmacists
and pharmacies who bring the profession into disrepute on a daily basis,
many of whom are never caught in the act. With this Government’s
predilection for interfering and centralised control becoming ever more
evident, it is surprising that our ancient profession has survived this
long without major surgery.
So we have a choice, many will opt to stay temporarily, many will not,
and others will discount ever returning to retrain or to re-enter the
profession after a career break. The question is, can the profession
afford to haemorrhage in this way, losing the wisdom, experience and
enthusiasm of so many able minds from the membership?
Brian G. Spencer
Sutton Coldfield,
West Midlands |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal