The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7332 p52
15 January 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 110K, Acrobat Reader

· 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

Retention fee

Split the retention fee

From Mr C. O. Agomo, MRPharmS

The recent threat by some disillusioned pharmacists to remove their names from the Register is not good for the profession. Dividing the retention fee into two separate fees, to cover the regulation and the representation roles could help. For example, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society could allocate £150 for each section, with the regulation fee made compulsory and representation fee made voluntary. What is happening is a situation where pharmacists who may not be happy with the representation they are getting, are made to pay a mandatory fee. By applying the optional membership fee, the Society will be providing a choice for its membership.

Chijioke O. Agomo
London N7

Change the Byelaws

From Mr R. J. Paulin, MRPharmS

Although Bernard Kelly’s response regarding payment of retention fees by direct debit is no doubt accurate (PJ, 1/8 January, p15), I think that he has not approached the answer in the correct manner. If it is a good suggestion that has been made on a number of occasions, why has he not made the effort to change the Byelaws to facilitate such a proposal?

Richard Paulin
Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex

Members’ needs

From Mrs J. K. Neather, MRPharmS

In his response to Andrew Jukes’s letter (PJ, 1/8 January, p15), all that Bernard Kelly is saying is “it has always been done this way, and will continue to be”. Has it not occurred to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society that if the rules do not meet the needs of its members then the rules should be changed? Using one’s credit card is not a satisfactory solution — this compounds the problem because members will then incur interest.

Once upon a time, it was the case that television licences had to be paid in full. If they can be paid by direct debit why not retention fees?

Joan Neather
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

Cannot legislation be changed?

From Ms A. J. Hall, MRPharmS

In reply to Bernard Kelly’s response to Andrew Jukes (PJ, 1/8 January, p15), I have two comments.

Surely it is possible to change archaic legislation and Byelaws to reflect the modern needs of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s membership with respect to monthly direct debit payment of retention fees.

Current legislation could be complied with if members were allowed to start making monthly payments 12 months before the payment became due, making adjustments for any fee increases when known.

Anne Hall
Neath, West Glamorgan

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The Society)
Next Topic (CPD)