The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7338 p236
26 February 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

· Workforce
· The Society (2)
· Statutory Committee (3)
· Council election
· Overseas pharmacists
· The profession (2)

Letters to the Editor

The profession

If we are a profession, we are certainly humble

From Mr D. J. Fallon, MRPharmS

There seems to be a serious discrepancy between how pharmacists view themselves and the reality of why we are actually judged as social band C1, workers of a supervisory or clerical nature (J. S. Khela, PJ, 19 February, p207). There is no doubt that pharmacists used to belong to a profession which was bound by a common pride and unity and which was respected by the community. We have to face a reality check; everything has really changed. We practically force eminent pharmacists to resign from the Register, we see the failings of the health service and “volunteer” to fill the gaps in the hope of remuneration, and we are gullible enough, despite knowing the myriad of prescribing errors our skills have prevented, to let technicians dispense and check medicines on our behalf while we still take responsibility if anything goes wrong. I know of several occasions when dispensing exactly what was on the prescription would have caused harm and technicians might not have reacted to it.

One great obstacle to categorising pharmacists is the wide variety of working activities undertaken and potential job specifications, but it can still be boiled down to to a basic pharmacist type of either “insulated” or “non-insulated”. The insulated pharmacists are protected from the pressure of meeting the public directly so can plan their workload and dream up exotic ideas. The non-insulated pharmacists have little protection from stress and know first hand what problems the users of the health service have, but are powerless to make changes and get entangled in the red tape of government.

Pointless tasks such as separating out contraceptive pill prescriptions for counting, and sending back Dianette prescriptions to be endorsed as exempt by doctors, and an inability to endorse simple authorised changes reveal how little authority we have and how little we are trusted. We are glorified tax inspectors checking the backs of prescriptions, asking to see income support books, making people pay twice for combination packs and turning away sick children who have left school but cannot claim jobseekers’ exemption. We are unable to provide Controlled Drugs to patients despite being certain that the incorrectly written prescription was issued in good faith by a careless doctor and is urgent. We know what it is like to work under extreme stress when staff are off sick and not replaced. We cannot always plan our workload: we have frequent interruptions and impatient customers.

If we are a profession we are certainly a humble one, always keen to do more for less and happy to do continuing professional development activities without reward.

Dennis Fallon
Birmingham

Our strength may lower our public image

From Mr R. W. Selfe, MRPharmS

J. S. Khela (PJ, 19 February, p207) expresses disappointment that pharmacists are categorised as social class C1 in a source of reference, rather than A or B with other professionals. I think I am able to diagnose the reason, but cannot prescribe a remedy because what we regard as one of our strengths may actually lower our public image, namely our ready availability for consultation without prior appointment. Would we wish to change this situation just to raise our public profile? I doubt it, but no amount of background training will affect the issue.

Perhaps the only way to correct the source in question — www.creditreporting.co.uk — is for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to furnish it with a rundown of how our members come to gain their qualifications.

Reg Selfe
Benfleet, Essex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Overseas pharmacists)