| · Fellowship of the Society (3)
· Overseas pharmacists (10)
· The Society (5)
· Retention fee (4)
· CPD (4)
· PECs
· Drug donations
· Dispensing errors
· Dispensing
· Morphine sulphate
· Near patient testing
· Slimming clubs
· New contract
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Fellowship of the Society
Can fellows be de-designated?
From Mr S. R. Axon, FRPharmS
Like Trevor Jones, I, too, find the requirement to sign a declaration
rather than rely on professional ethics repugnant. However, the response
that Professor Jones received from Lambeth, referred to in his letter
(PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p882) provides a sad reflection upon a lifetime
of distinguished service to the profession.
Both the fairness and the logic of the removal of a fellowship from those who
have been designated as fellows should they retire from the register escapes
me, particularly as we have honorary members and honorary fellows who, similarly,
are not pharmacists and in many cases have contributed much less to our profession.
For many years, in order to avoid invidious distinction only the letters MPS
or FPS (without any academic degrees) were permitted to appear on pharmacy
fascias. Thus the practising qualification for our profession was membership
of the Society and in a diminishing number of cases fellowship for those who
qualified PhC.This qualification was (and is) evidenced to the public by the
displaying certificate of registration. This certificate remains the property
of the Society. By way of contrast, for the last 50 or so years, fellowship
of the Society has been an honour designated for distinction in the profession,
practice or science of pharmacy. Fellowships are awarded for past service to
the profession and the certificates remain the property of the recipient. They
carry no right to practise the profession of pharmacy.
How can a “designation” be taken away except by Council resolution
for dishonourable conduct? The Chambers definition of designation is “named
or made known”. This definition is in keeping with the announcements
made from time to time in the PJ. Since some of our designated fellows may
leave the Register because they feel let down by the Society at the treatment
they are receiving, are we to look forward to an announcement of their being
stripped of their fellowships?
Who at Lambeth should even suggest this without first referring the question
to Council? Perhaps this person should point us all to the Charter provision
setting out the procedure for de-designation of those designated as fellows
of the Society. It may well be there, but I certainly missed it when recently
consulted and I suspect that others might have as well.
Stephen Axon
Amersham,
Buckinghamshire
Have I missed something?
From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS
The only element of melancholy normally found in the PJ resides in the
obituaries but, in the 18/25 December 2004 issue, the letters from Trevor
Jones and Anne
Prasad (p882) brought their own sadness. Here we have
two pharmacists of international standing and outstanding performance
unsure whether or not they can remain within our Society.
I was intrigued by Professor Jones’s comment that our headquarters had
informed him that, if he failed to sign the registration declarations, he would
be stripped of his fellowship of our Society. I find this curious because I
can find no trace of any mechanism in place to recall a fellowship. Perhaps
I have not searched the more arcane regulations with sufficient diligence but
I think it is more likely that the answer is that this is no mere oversight.
Fellowship of the Society is not awarded; it is the person who is designated
as a fellow on the basis of his or her outstanding contribution to the science,
profession, practice or history of pharmacy by a panel of fellows under a Grant
of Power by the Privy Council (November 2002) as shown in Byelaw III(4) or
by the Council itself under Byelaw III(3), the latter being rarely exercised.
Both Professor Jones and Mrs Prasad are fellows by designation by the panel
of fellows, something which is explicitly outwith the influence of the Council
and is totally unrelated to payment of fee or relationship to the current or
future practice and is rooted firmly in the excellence of their career performance.
Are we looking at another example of the law of unintended consequences, or
have I missed something?
Ian Caldwell
Larkhall,
Lanarkshire
What is the rationale behind removing fellowships?
From Miss A. Savage, FRPharmS
Like Trevor Jones (PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p882), I, too, am proud
to have been designated a fellow of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
Could I therefore ask what is the rationale behind stripping any fellow
of the honour given to him or her by the Society?
Anne Savage
Pinner,
Middlesex
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:
Members who are concerned by letters from fellows of the Society can
be reassured that the introduction of new categories of membership has
not
changed the status or recognition of pharmacists whose contributions
to pharmacy have been recognised by the profession. Fellowship of the
Society,
like membership, is a title reserved in law to those on our register,
whether practising or not, and has never been available to non-pharmacists,
including former pharmacists.
If a fellow chooses to resign from the Register, they also relinquish
their fellowship. This has always been the case. The decision to resign
from the Register is personal
to the pharmacist concerned and presumably reflects careful consideration
of the wish to continue practising, including compliance with the
CPD requirements
of the Society, or to transfer to the non-practising section of the Register. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal