PJ Online | PJ Letters

For overbearing bureaucracy to prevail all that is required is for the sensible majority to do nothing and simply accept what our elected representatives decide. But we can make a difference and it looks as though common sense may yet prevail on the question of fees for retired members (PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p887). Because of this a number of us were inclined to pay this year’s substantial increase so that we could monitor the position for a further year — that is until we received the annual retention fee form.

From this we discovered that we had to declare that, among other things, we would not give any advice in relation to health care. I live in a small Cotswolds town where most know me, for good or ill, for what I am and what I have been. If in conversation someone asks me, as they have, “should I have the flu jab?”, “I’m too fat, how should I change my diet?”, “I’ve got a nasty cough, should I still smoke?”, “What about my level of exercise and drinking?”, they simply would not believe me if I said I was not allowed to comment. If I save myself £46 and come off the Register I then reacquire the rights of an ordinary member of the public and can enter into general discussion.

It is bunkum and contrary to natural justice that I should be expected to pay money to a body that is supposed to maintain the honour and dignity of my profession and thereby lose the rights that I have acquired by education and training. It has been suggested that I should simply complete the declaration and ignore it, but that is not how the law works. An alternative, which I am inclined to favour, is to complete the declaration and publicly declare that I may be called on to break the undertaking and leave the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to take action against me, and I would be content to leave it to the courts to decide where natural justice lies.

The implications of the current situation have not been properly thought through by the Council (if they were aware of what was being sent out in their name) or by the staff (if they were responsible), who would seem to have lost touch with reality.

Bruce Rhodes
Winchcombe, Gloucestershire

Leadership or dictatorship?

From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS

One might have expected that, given all the dissent around the Royal Charter issue and the landslide victory of the Save Our Society candidates at the last Council elections, Lambeth would have learnt its lesson. However, it is apparent that the organisation continues to bat against its own membership and shows a wanton disregard for the financial consequences and for the consequences upon the morale of the profession.

I oppose in principle neither the requirement for continuing professional development nor a decent income for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. But what is being imposed upon us is simply further alienating the members from the organisation: we are still treading a familiar and unnecessarily self-destructive path. We are told “there is no choice”, that if these things are not “done the Lambeth way” then the Society will lose its status as a regulator. Interestingly, these are just the arguments that were advanced a year ago when we were told that Royal Charter Object 3 had to go. It was not true then, and I do not believe it to be true now. Despite the obvious failings of the General Medical Council, that organisation has not lost its regulatory status, so I am certain that the Society, with its unimpeached record as a regulator could afford to push the boat out a little for the members. I am appalled to see that designated fellows, pharmacists of the quality, influence and standing of Ann Prasad and Trevor Jones (PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p882) feel that they have to resign from the Register in order to continue to practise, and that they are threatened with the loss of their fellowships. By the same token, the implementation of CPD, as pointed out by Perry Melnick (ibid, p881) and others seems to focus more upon the process than the outcome. This is as unacceptable.

The key issues that concern the members are: the restructuring of the Register, the size of the increase in the fees, the declaration on the retention form and the recording requirements for the CPD process. Readers may have gained the impression from the limited reports in the pharmacy press that the Council either has not discussed these at all or that it is complicit. The truth is that much of the detail has never been shown to the Council and that all the discussion has been taken in private session, as a consequence of which those of us who raised objections cannot share them without breaking Council governance procedures. As I wrote (PJ, 24 July 2004, p115): “The Charter issue is only the visible 10 per cent of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s iceberg of problems. We still have to deal with the 90 per cent below the waterline.” I will continue the fight for an organisation that genuinely represents the interests of its members and one that is a great deal more transparent in its activities.

Clearly, the SOS campaign has some way to go yet.

Graham Phillips
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

I shall be registering as a practising pharmacist

From Mr W. M. Darling, FRPharmS

I totally support mandatory continuing professional development. Six or so years ago, because of my time commitment to other health service work, including my membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council, I took the decision that I was not competent to be in control of a community pharmacy and have not acted in that capacity since.

It is with this background that I have considered carefully my position regarding my membership of the Society. I have no intention of giving up my work on various health service bodies, where on occasions I do use my pharmaceutical knowledge. I believe that that is well within my competency due to my continuing efforts to keep up to date.

The profession of pharmacy is becoming increasingly diverse. Pharmacists from every field of practice are in considerable demand to provide advice as well as services in many different environments. In the spirit of the Government’s decision to make mandatory CPD a requirement for practice for health professionals I have therefore decided to commence CPD and have asked the Society to send me the appropriate package. My CPD record will include attending training courses for non-executive directors organised by the NHS appointments commission. It will all be pertinent to the roles I undertake; it will not include any clinical activity. I understand that this will enable me to continue on the Register as a practising pharmacist, albeit not in control of a community pharmacy.

Bill Darling
Sunderland, Tyne and Wear

I cannot “be” a pharmacist

From Mr N. Fitt, MRPharmS

I am filled with angst. Since 1 January I have been in the non-practising section of the Register. So I can call myself a pharmacist but I cannot “be” a pharmacist.

Norman Fitt
Manchester

Pharmacy politics is not about dogma

From Mr P. J. Curphey, FRPharmS

I was initially saddened but am now alarmed at the growing concerns being raised by older, long-serving, dedicated members of our profession over changes to the Register. What have we failed to communicate (again)? What have we done which we did not intend? Who is looking after the professional interests of these pharmacists? We have always had a problem no other profession had, which is that calling oneself a pharmacist means we must be registered. There is no courtesy title; there is no facility to call ourselves the equivalent of doctor, or retired dentist. We even have to return our certificates for cancellation when we retire.

I sat on the Council which initiated this process, made necessary by Government and now more so by the Shipman inquiry report. I know that our intention was to reassure the public of the quality of our “practising” register: that pharmacists claiming to be such could properly be held to be competent and hold skills and knowledge by virtue of the title. Consequently those no longer at the cutting edge of modern practice would take another “title” so that there is no confusion. That older pharmacists should now feel so discarded and useless and that fees are ridiculously high is a disgrace and it must now be corrected.

This Council (the protectors of the membership) must find a way of explaining the position and satisfying the demands of a caring profession to show it also cares for those who choose not to practise.

I know personally several retired GPs. They rarely offer any medical advice to anyone. When they do they remind the listener that they are simply not competent so to do. They remain registered; they do not have to declare that they will not offer simple advice, like any intelligent layman. They remain with their courtesy title. We have created a straightjacket. I ask the Council to put it right immediately. The proper choice of words, thoughtfully stated will reassure everyone and show we care.

My “political” career has been based on my passionate belief that we should raise the levels of competence in practice within the degree and that we make huge competency-based changes to the preregistration year and to the registration examination. (One day real clinical situations will appear in the examination.) I fought long and hard for mandatory CPD so I am not going to compromise on who can practise.

I will support revalidation when it reaches the top of the agenda but I will always be a pharmacist, protected title or not.
When the time comes, eventually, for me to retire from active practice, who is going to sue me for telling someone to take two paracetamol for a headache, or for suggesting a visit to the GP to discuss benzodiazepine dependence, or urging my family to be properly vaccinated?

Pharmaceutical politics is no different from any other politics: it is about the art of the possible, not about dogma.

Peter Curphey
Ballaugh, Isle of Man

Reconsider fee structure

From Professor T. G. Booth, FRPharmS

I write in strong support of the point made so succinctly in Frank Newcombe’s letter (PJ, 11 December 2004, p854). I have deleted the words “or give advice in relation to” from the box for non-practising pharmacists on the retention form. I am unable to subscribe to a situation in which I have to respond to a request for information and advice about medicines with the words “I am unable to give you any advice because I am a pharmacist” which is the logical conclusion. I presume the Registrar may well not accept the deletion. So be it.

I am forced to conclude that the Council failed to appreciate the consequences of the fee revision or that it was badly advised by the executive, or both.

I have received a number of complaints about the new fees, not least from abroad, all with some serious justification. I fear the outcome will result in a significant number of colleagues retiring from the Society, which will only serve to negate the anticipated increase in income.

The Council should reconsider the fees structure and the details, particularly if my fears are realised.

T. G. Booth
Past President and Treasurer
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

I find it insulting

From Mr M. J. Pomeroy

I have, like many of my colleagues, retired from membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I find it disappointing that after 47 years on the Register, one is not allowed to retire with dignity and retain the title and qualifications that have been acquired and used over a lifetime devoted to service to the public. I understand the need for ongoing education and I have always tried to attend whatever courses were arranged to this end. I believe ours must be the only profession that strips its members of all ties and titles achieved over a lifetime. I am not prepared to pay the reduced fee and declare that I will never give advice if asked. My advice may not be up to date but it would not be dangerous. We retired pharmacists are still asked our opinions on health matters and I find it insulting that we are no longer deemed fit to judge whether or not to refer.

M. J. Pomeroy
Winchester, Hampshire

Misleading statements about retention fee payment

From Dr G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS

I am surprised at several documents from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society that tend to mislead the members over the procedure for paying fees. These include the original reminder for fees issued in January and the news item “Only two weeks to pay retention fee” (PJ, 15 January, p65). Both are misleading and not the entire facts.

The current Byelaws, advertised in The Journal (PJ, 14 August 2004, p241) and reported as approved by the Privy Council (PJ, 4 December 2004, p833) set out the procedure for the collection of fees. Apart from the new fee structure the rest of the Byelaw is a re-enactment of earlier Byelaws.

It is correct that the fees are due on 1 January but not correct to say they must be paid by 31 January 2005 and certainly not true that members only have two weeks to pay. It is true that, if not paid by 1 January, a statutory demand may be sent, at any date decided by the Society, to a member by registered or recorded delivery. The Byelaws then go on to say, “where a pharmacist has failed to pay his fee to the Society within two months of the date of service of the demand” the matter may be brought to the Council, which may authorise removal of the name from the Register (Byelaws, Section II, para 10 & 11).

In the Society’s haste to collect fees quickly — and I understand why — the members have not been told that they have another two months after the issue of the statutory demand in which to pay their fees.

Gordon Appelbe
London

MRPharmS (Ret)?

From Mr M. Samson, MRPharmS

I suggest that those who have retired from the Register, particularly those distinguished by a fellowship, should continue to use their designations, perhaps with the words “(retired)” or “(Ret)” after their names.

What would the Royal Pharmaceutical Society do in such circumstances? Would it sue each and every former member and risk not only ridicule and the charge of vindictiveness in the eyes of the public, but perhaps even bankruptcy of the Society?

Solicitors, accountants, generals, admirals and a multitude of others may continue to refer to themselves as such, after parting company with their professions and callings, with the word “Retired” after their names. Pharmacists should be able to do likewise.

Michael Samson
Worthing, West Sussex

A violation of my rights

From Mr B. Cheetham, MRPharmS

Consider the following scenario: I am an inactive registered pharmacist, but I wish to help out in times of need on a health care counter, selling general sale list and pharmacy medicines, but I am deemed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to be active and subject to severe consequences. However any other member of the general public, after completing a recognised health care programme may sell these goods with impunity. But for me, after 49 years in community pharmacy, this is taboo.

I consider this to be a violation of my fundamental human rights not to be allowed to work as I wish. It is also a severe restrictive practice. Both of these, as far as I am aware, are not allowed.

The verdict might be interesting if one or a group of inactive registered pharmacists took this to the Court of Human Rights in The Hague.

Brian Cheetham
Exmouth, Devon

CPD is a straightjacket

From Mrs S. Davis, MRPharmS

Anne Mishon rather harshly judges those, particularly older, members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society who are objecting to the changes in the membership fee structure (PJ, 11 December 2004, p854). I do not believe that they are seeking special treatment, as she suggests; they simply want to be treated fairly.

Age does not necessarily confer wisdom, but there is always the possibility that it can. It is possible to learn from experience and so acquire wisdom during the course of one’s lifetime. There will always be those of any age who lack the capacity for insight into their own characters and personalities and who therefore fail to recognise their own shortcomings. There may well be some elderly pharmacists who have become a liability but there are also some younger ones, too.

I retired at the age of 60 years because of the increasing demands of caring for a partner with a long-term degenerative illness. I continued to work occasionally as and when my situation permitted. I appreciate the need for continuing professional development and was willing to undertake this, although I found it difficult to carry it out because the way the CPD programme is structured does not appear to suit those who only work intermittently: we are not able to apply what we learn directly to situations we encounter on a day-to-day basis. I am still interested in learning but I find it difficult to do so within the straightjacket imposed by the CPD format. I can only conclude that this is all part of a plan to get rid of people such as myself from the Register.

Susan Davis
Stroud, Gloucestershire

The Society is discriminating

From Mr C. R. Williams, MRPharmS

What are the legal and ethical consequences of the following scenario? A semi-retired pharmacist decides to pay the non-practising fee to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Sometime later he applies for a job in a pharmacy as a helper cum dispenser, having no wish to be a fully fledged pharmacist again. Is the Society stating that in this case this person cannot apply for the job unless he pays the full practising fee?

In my view, to pay a reduced fee in order to be deemed a non-practising pharmacist is absurd and highly unprofessional. A pharmacist is a pharmacist by definition. What can a non-practising pharmacist do? Will he be reprimanded if he does not pay £256 before he helps out in a pharmacy? My own opinion is that the Society is discriminating against and depriving non-practising members from the basic right and liberty to work in a pharmacy even on a voluntary basis.

Charles Williams
Crowborough, East Sussex

‘Pharmacy 2004’

From Mrs J. Plows, MRPharmS

I read with increasing disbelief the pamphlet entitled “Practising or non-practising pharmacist” enclosed with The Pharmaceutical Journal of 4 December 2004.

The doublespeak in the blue panel “What is a practising pharmacist” sounded vaguely familiar. Where had I come across this before?

Then I realised — it must be an extract from that great, long-lost novel by George Orwell: ‘Pharmacy 2004’.

Janice Plows
Bristol

A potential disastrous loss of income

From Mr K. J. Knight, FRPharmS

Clare Bellingham’s article, “To practise or not: that is the question” (PJ, 4 December, p809), disguises the weakness of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s position. Its real legal writ is strictly limited to those who work in the sale or supply of medicines from registered premises, ie, community pharmacies. Its impotence in relation to dispensing doctors has long illustrated this. Except in the case of community pharmacy, membership of the Society does not add value unless it is written in the contract of employment.

Table 1 in Ms Bellingham’s article does not give the full picture. About a quarter of the membership does not work in community pharmacy. Unless these can be persuaded that membership has real value there could be a disastrous loss of income.

Kenneth Jack Knight
Crewkerne, Somerset

Insensitive to professional values

From Mr A. J. McLaughlin, FRPharmS

The proposal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council to look again at the retention fee for non-practising pharmacists (PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p887) is welcomed but it it is not the only issue. The other key issue is the requirement to sign a declaration, the wording of which is so insensitive to the professional values established over many years of practice as a pharmacists. Can further consideration be given to this?

Andrew J. McLaughlin
Alloway, Ayrshire

Betrayed

From Mr R. F. P. Williams, MRPharmS

I feel that I have been betrayed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I was a part-time locum pharmacist doing the odd days and standing in for a few hours here and there. I kept up with my CPD. Now we have been hit with this new elitist and ageist Charter followed by the most idiotic fee structure of all time. I think the Society has sounded the death knell of pharmacy. It will now be passed into the hands of the supermarkets and multiples and all independent pharmacies will go the way of independent bakers, butchers, greengrocers etc.

I think in 10 years’ time people will being asking: “Pharmacists? What were they?”

Robin Williams
Plymouth, Devon

How do I now describe myself?

From Miss A. N. Felton

I have returned my retention fee form rather sadly as I was resigning from the Register after 52 years.

I felt I really could not become a non-practising pharmacist. I could not guarantee not to break the laws about advice etc, and I like giving my little talk on pharmacy, which would have been excluded.

The question now is how do I describe myself? Apparently I cannot call myself a pharmacist. (When are the Thought Police coming to remove all the knowledge accrued over all these years?) In the old days when we were called chemists, one described oneself as a dispensing chemist rather than a pure chemist. Should I now call myself an impure chemist?

Anne Felton
Bath

I intend to use the title “PhC”

From Mr B. F. Hollowood, MRPharmS

Having considered resigning at the end of 2004 and having read Brenda Rainbow’s letter (PJ, 15 January, p52), I was prompted to find and read my speckled and faded diploma. I discover I never have been a “pharmaceutical chemist”; only that I have sufficient skill and knowledge to be registered as such. What clever wording! Only now does it have significance.

However, I intend, when I do decide to resign and if the occasion should arise, to use the title “PhC”. After all, what can the powers that be do about a non-member? The Royal Pharmaceutical Society was unable to stop Damien Hirst using the word “Pharmacy” in connection with his restaurant and bar (PJ, 27 September 2003, p396).

Brian Hollowood
Crewe, Cheshire

Sorry! The Society will not let me help you

From Mr R. Hewell

My wife’s cousin recently was diagnosed with epilepsy and she turned to me for help and advice. Having been on the Register for 51 years I believed I was justified in discussing her treatment and setting her mind at rest. It is a good job this happened in 2004. Had she asked me in 2005 I would have had to say: “Sorry! The Royal Pharmaceutical Society will not let me help you.” How do you think this reflects on what was our Society? I have now regretfully resigned so that I can still listen to people who remember me as their pharmacist.

R. Hewell
Bodmin, Cornwall

Better off leaving

From Dr C. Richardson, MRPharmS

I work for a leading cancer research charity and as part of my work give advice in relation to the science of medicines. This advice, however, could be given equally well by a pharmacologist, a bioinformatics specialist or a pharmaceutical scientist. Will the Society be “imposing sanctions” on pharmacologists? I assume that it will not, which leads me to the conclusion that I would be better off leaving the Register than staying on as a non-practising pharmacist.

Chris Richardson
London

An active retired pharmacist

From Mrs C. G. Kellett, MRPharmS

Frank Newcombe (PJ, 11 December 2004, p854) should not consider himself to be a “practising non-pharmacist” but rather an active retired pharmacist.

Celia Kellett
Stockton, Worcestershire

Leaving with immediate effect

From Dr G. D. Rees, MRPharmS

With the way the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has now restructured its fees, the increase for part-time pharmacists is extraordinary.

To put the retention fees into some context, the Royal Society of Chemistry (of which I am also a member) in 2005 is charging £93 and I receive a significantly enhanced and efficient service from that body than from today’s Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

I have a degree in pharmacy, of which I have always been proud, and will continue to be so. In my own mind, I will always be a pharmacist, despite what the ruling body has arbitrarily decided. I feel I can no longer support the financial ineptitude of the Society under its current management and am leaving with immediate effect.

For the sake of other members, I hope something can be done to improve the Society’s management, before it is destroyed from within.

G. D. Rees
Charvil, Berkshire

Show them who is boss!

From Mr J. A. S. Buisson, MRPharmS

May I remind all those members (and fellows) who remain on the Register that this year’s election to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council gives them a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the way things are run at Lambeth.

In my view, the Council and the Society have treated the membership with contempt in the past few years — over the Charter, over fees, over the annual general and branch representatives’ meetings, over the President’s flat, and so on. Now it is our turn to respond.

All the current members of Council, including the Privy Council nominees, have to stand down. Why let them get back on? I urge members to use their 17 votes wisely: send a clear signal to Lambeth as to whom the Society is run for and who is the boss!

Jonathan Buisson
Hook, Hampshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Overseas pharmacists)