| · Pharmacy workforce
· Analgesics
· Packaging (2)
· The Society (6)
· CPD
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
The benefit of ignorance
From Mrs A. Morant, MRPharmS
I found the letter entitled “Reductio ad absurdum” (PJ,
5 February, p146) from Bruce
Rhodes, where he described how he had acted
as an agent provocateur and provoked a “non-practising member of
the profession” to offer advice, interesting.
I have no doubt that he is correct in saying that this matter should
be referred to the Statutory Committee. After all, the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society must take its role of protecting the public from poor advice
seriously. However, I just wonder what sanctions the Society would be
able to apply? After all, in practice, there is no shortage of legitimate
sources of information. As well as your community (practising) pharmacist
you can, equally well, ask the filling station attendant or a supermarket
cashier. Unlike non-practising pharmacists with many years of training
and experience, the latter are not constrained by lack of knowledge from
giving advice.
But what should a non-practising pharmacist do when “advice” is
being given which is, to his or her certain knowledge, dangerous? Say “It
is nothing to do with me” and walk away or step in and provide
information that would ensure the safety of the individual concerned
even though, to do so, would be in breach of the non-practising pharmacist’s
code of conduct?
It is vital that these issues should not be swept under the carpet. By
banning non-practising pharmacists from giving advice, the Society is
asking — no, demanding — that they should immediately throw
away that old fashioned habit of a lifetime, duty of care.
Annette Morant
Edgware, Middlesex
Let us move on!
From Dr J. D. Flack, MRPharmS
I understand the angst and dilemmas faced by colleagues from overseas,
those from the industrial sector and retired and esteemed members of
the Register as expressed in the plethora of letters over the past few
weeks as a result of the new retention fee structure and the necessary
declarations to be signed for non-practising status. I wonder, however,
if there is, at best, an overreaction and, at worst, some self-indulgence
bordering on what we might expect from a prima donna.
But for a short period of doing locums to supplement a meagre stipend
during my PhD studies, I have been in all practical terms a non-practising
pharmacist working in industry for the past 35 years, the last nine of
which have been in Australia. During this time of discovering and developing
new medicines there has been absolutely no requirement on me to be a
member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in order to undertake my duties.
A first degree in pharmacy and a further degree in pharmacology and the
hard won knowledge acquired with them has been all that has mattered.
Thus no one, ever, can remove the right for me to call myself a pharmacist — albeit
non-practising — and a pharmacologist.
I did give some thought but not for too long about the declaration statement
and its intentions for non-practising status. It was quite clear to me,
however poorly the wording may have been, that, hand on heart, I could
declare with complete integrity to be a non-practising pharmacist whether
it be in the UK or Australia. If I did not believe that, why did I long
ago spare the ink on my business cards of the distinguished but nevertheless
cumbersome “MRPharmS” while retaining BPharm, PhD?
So why do I wish to retain my Society membership especially when overseas
and industrial pharmacists have been treated with such disdain by Lambeth
in recent years? Simply because I can receive The Journal to be kept
informed of matters pertaining to the profession and because of the unmitigated
pride I have in being a member of such a diverse and fine profession.
For me, at least, this represents good value for my £46 retention
fee.
Although it seems almost on every issue of concern to the membership
the mandarins at HQ seem hard of hearing and, in their rather tart responses,
never appear to be knowingly wrong, it seems that there might be at least
indirect admittance of there having been an injustice perpetrated on
overseas members. Quite out of the blue we now learn (PJ, 15 January,
p51) that we will be receiving our Journal within days rather than months
at no extra cost. This is indeed a welcome and timely decision. Perhaps
we will now see the industrial pharmacists similarly placated with the
reintroduction of the publication Industrial Pharmacist.
So let common sense and integrity of members prevail over the intent
and semantics of the options and declaration on the retention form. Let
us move on!
John Flack
Melbourne, Australia
Precise interpretations of Byelaws needed
From Mr D. C. Shenton, MRPharmS
The mental picture of Bruce
Rhodes doing as he described in his latest
letter (PJ, 5 February, p146) is welcome light relief in this awful situation — the
situation in which pharmacists, eminent and ordinary, say they believe
resignation is the only choice for an honourable person who refuses to
be gagged by the new registration rules. Assuming he was not kidding,
can the tape be made public?
Ever since the new Byelaws were first promulgated last year I have expected
to see precise interpretations of the wording about giving advice. The
requirements have been described as rigid, but just how rigid are they?
The Secretary and Registrar did try to throw some light in her recent
article (PJ, 22 January, p94) but it was light not focused enough. She
wrote: “A number of pharmacists who have retired wish to continue
making a contribution to society by giving advice in a personal capacity.
In such a case, the distinction between practising and non-practising
roles may not be clear …” Her subsequent explanation helped
little.
What we need is a tabulation showing “This is practising”, “This
is not”. Several criteria could be identified; examples of likely
events could easily be put together and that would be most helpful.
If the Secretary and Registrar’s words “… consider whether
the role is effectively a continuation of practice …” mean
I should look to my experience, my limitations, my judgement and my conscience,
taking each contact or enquiry on its merits and weighing the balance
of public interest, then let that be clearly spelt out. Either way, I
believe the anguish of many of your correspondents, who are taking absolute
rigidity as established, will be resolved.
David Shenton
Staines, Middlesex
Do not give advice for monetary gain
From Mr M. E. James, FRPharmS
I am one of those concerned over the method of classification of the
Register into practising and non-practising and it seems that, as time
has gone on, we are in danger of making even greater fools of ourselves
than first appeared. It would seem, and no one from the Society’s
education department appears to have corrected the impression, that some
believe that continuing professional development refers only to traditional
core activities, whereas a glance at the back pages of the PJ shows clearly
that such work represents a declining proportion of overall pharmaceutical
activity.
There are, however, some sane voices. Past president Bill
Darling (PJ,
22 January, p81) sensibly pointed out that as he was active and remunerated
for what might be termed quasi-pharmaceutical activities he would define
himself as “practising” and record such CPD as was appropriate
to his current role. I would suggest that Trevor Jones falls into a similar
category. I have no doubt that he ensures that when he gives his opinion
it is valid, and based on current thinking. It also seemed from his
letter (PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p882) that he was remunerated for, or at least
not out of pocket as a result of, his activities, and I suggest that
here is the touchstone.
At a much humbler level than both of them I am, while retired, still
active in a paid part-time pharmaceutical role. I have no intention whatsoever
of carrying out any duties in a community pharmacy. I have therefore
paid my fees as a practising pharmacist and try to record appropriate
CPD, although it includes little which might be applicable to running
a community pharmacy. I agree, incidentally, with Adam
Mackridge (PJ,
5 February, p147) in his comments on “Plan and record”, especially
when, perhaps like Professor Jones, one has no idea what is going to
be asked of one tomorrow and must “simply” read widely in
order to be aware of current developments. In my own situation I am given
a task and must familiarise (or refamiliarise) myself with the requirements
thereof. For me, therefore, planning, recording and reflecting can be
fairly straightforward.
I am, incidentally, extremely concerned at Bruce
Rhodes letter (PJ, 5
February, p146). It is alarming that a former inspector should think
it appropriate to act as an agent provocateur . I never thought that
they behaved in this way, but now I am not so sure. Could I have an assurance
that the current inspectorate do not do so, or should I include this
in my CPD as experiential learning?
However, the present situation has gone beyond the ludicrous. We cannot
let a situation continue whereby people of high academic distinction
or who devotedly served their communities feel they cannot remain within
the Society. I fail to see how we can create honorary
fellows of parliamentarians,
however, distinguished (PJ, 4 September 2004, p331) while losing such
as those I have cited. I suggest that a way forward would be for non-practising
pharmacists to have to sign a declaration that they would not offer advice
for gain, unless there is some diktat from the Department of Health or
the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence to prevent this? And
if so, we should be told. After all, it is common for retired senior
civil servants to take well remunerated posts in industry, apparently
on the strength of their experience.
Miall E. James
Colchester,
Essex
Fellowship well earned
From Mrs S. R. Weston, FRPharmS
A small point, but may I correct Ian
Caldwell’s comment (PJ, 29
January, p110) about the fellowship being awarded for those who had qualified
on or before 1 February 1951. In fact I believe it was for those who
had been registered as students of the Pharmaceutical Society before
September 1948.
This was the year I registered but, because I had done little science,
I had to start at the beginning and work my way through biology, physics
and chemistry up to “subsid” level (in four terms) before
enrolling at Bradford Technical College for the Inter BPharm course.
I eventually passed the Chemist & Druggist and also the Pharmaceutical
Qualifying examinations and it was 1954 before I qualified, after a year’s
apprenticeship. I was the only one in our year who was awarded the fellowship,
but felt I had really earned it.
I look forward to voting in this year’s council elections. I trust
that all the nominees will state clearly what their thoughts are on the
new membership fee structure and registration rules, so that the anomalies
can be sorted out quickly.
Sheila Weston
Romsey,
Hampshire
A non-practising handicap
From Mr D. Hollows, MRPharmS
As a dinosaur recently consigned to the scrap heap of life, I now play
a fair amount of golf.
I am frequently asked by people I play with what I do (or did). Dutifully
I tell them that I am a non-practising pharmacist.
Ah, they say, that explains why your handicap is not coming down.
Derek Hollows
Chelmsford,
Essex |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal