| · Mental health (2)
· Malawi
· Technician registration
· CPD (2)
· Price reductions
· The Society (4)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
NP declaration not necessary
From Mr S. R. Axon, MRPharmS
In his letter, G.
Southall-Edwards (PJ, 26 February, p233) makes interesting
observations about the legal nature of the non-practising declaration
and expresses an opinion that might well be correct. Before more money
is poured into the legal profession’s coffers, I suggest that,
rather than challenge the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, it is so much
easier to put the ball into the Society’s own court (no pun intended).
I am sure that I am not the only one to have deleted the NP declaration
and be registered as a non-practising pharmacist. It would save us all
a lot of pain, and perhaps the Society some potential future legal bills,
if the Registrar had the grace to admit that insistence on the declaration
was not necessary in the light of the obligations in the code of ethics
and future Byelaws, and published the fact that registration is being
accepted with the offending declaration deleted rather than to try to
save face by waiting for the rumour-mill to do its work.
Stephen Axon
Amersham, Buckinghamshire
Perhaps it is time for a regulation-only fee
From the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association General Committee
It is now five months since Tony
West, President of the Guild of Healthcare
Pharmacists, wrote to the PJ (9 October 2004, p517) pointing out that
the increase in fees has raised several questions that require consideration.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has attempted to placate the membership
over some of the issues raised by Mr West, however this has taken the
form of restating the aims of policies rather than looking to re-examine
them. There is one issue that the Society has so far not addressed. This
issue we believe is fundamental. Restating it:
· The perception by many members that the monopoly position of the Society
as the regulator is being used to bolster the “representation” role,
when in fact the Society is not representing their interests. The evidence
for this being the plethora of pharmacy organisations, in all sectors
offering “representation” roles.
· With regulation-only retention fees available for technicians why can
this option not be offered to pharmacists as well? If the perceptions
of pharmacists mentioned above are unfounded then there is no reason
why this choice should not be an option.
There appears to have been no attempt by the Society since October to
answer this legitimate question. Why is this? Is this because the Society
is considering options with regard to this issue or is it because the
Society does not feel the need to address genuine grievances raised by
its members. If the latter is the case then the perceptions of abuse
of the monopoly position will be reinforced and the malaise of members
towards the Society will spread still further. This will also lead, we
are sure, to the further emergence of louder and more cogent dissent
in order to construct an agenda for change within the profession.
This is a time of unprecedented change in health care; the opportunities
for pharmacists to participate in the modernisation and improvement of
the delivery of patient care have never been greater. We need organisations
and leaders who will represent us in order to maximise the uptake of
these opportunities to the benefit of the patient and the profession.
I ask the Society to join this debate in the open and constructive manner
that our members and the wider profession expect.
Graeme Hall
Professional Secretary
United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association
| |
ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
The Society’s representational work is not separate
from its regulatory role: in fact, it is essential to help fulfil
the Society’s professional and its regulatory responsibilities.
The Society promotes pharmacy’s contribution to health and
lobbies in the interests of both public and profession on issues
across the full range of the Society’s remit, whether regulatory
or professional. But the Society cannot act against the public
interest and it cannot represent pharmacists’ individual
or commercial interests. As Graeme Hall indicates, other bodies,
such as the
guild, exist for this purpose. The Society has regular meetings
with the
guild, during which the two organisations consider how they can
work together in their respective roles.
The Society’s professional work is analogous to that of a Royal College:
supporting quality and improvement, developing the profession, contributing to
public policy and advising on pharmaceutical matters. This work is closely linked
to professional regulation, which now encompasses all the functions that combine
to assure competence and fitness to practise. In medicine, these roles are undertaken
by the medical Royal Colleges and the General Medical Council, respectively.
Having them integrated in one organisation is a great strength. This was recognised
in the responses to the consultation on the Society’s future remit, which
showed a clear preference for retaining regulatory and professional roles within
a reformed Society. |
Experience no longer counts
From Mr John D. R. Jolley, FRPharmS
Many experienced and long serving members have faced the dilemma of
not wishing to conform to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s new
recording system for continuing professional development and yet not
being able to accept the terms of the declaration required to become
a non-practising member. There is nothing new in the concept of CPD and
most members have been voluntarily practising CPD in their own area of
specialisation. What is new is that CPD is now mandatory and that the
Society requires recorded evidence.
Following the Kennedy Report, I believe it is essential that all health
care professionals, including pharmacists, who give advice to individual
patients should be required to provide evidence that they have kept up
to date with current medicinal practice. However, not all pharmacists
come into contact with patients and I can see no logic in requiring a
practising pharmacist in academia, research or industry to have to declare
away their rights when becoming non-practising, just because they fail
to provide the required record. We must appreciate that members in this
category often belong to several other professional bodies and retirement
from the Society does not mean retirement from all professional activity.
This is by no means the only difficulty associated with the new membership
grades, since there are also anomalies for part-time and overseas members.
For this reason we require an urgent review of membership needs before
2006, it is not simply a question of practising and non-practising.
To ignore this will see a decline in the number of recognised roles for
the pharmacist and a corresponding decline in the number of registered
members, since there are already a significant number of pharmacy graduates
who never register with the Society. And, as things stand, who can blame
them?
John D. R. Jolley
Council Election Candidate
Newbury, Berkshire
Shouldn’t Government help with costs?
From Mr J. E. Balmford, FRPharmS
At the February Council meeting, it was decided to commission an architect “to
draw up initial
plans for the redevelopment of the headquarters building
to accommodate meetings of the reformed Council” (PJ, 12 February,
p182). We were not given an estimate of how much the architect would cost
and I cannot see why three options are asked for: gutting the existing
chamber, structural changes to the first floor, and redeveloping the hall
and first floor meeting rooms.
Having been on the Society’s Council for a number of years from a
time before the Lambeth headquarters building was planned, I believe I
know the building as well as many of its existing incumbents. In my view,
it would not need an architect to design the incorporation of extensions
to both sides of the C-shaped table, where at least four more members could
be seated, and two more members could be seated at each end of the “top” table.
This, to me, is just another example of the attitude of the Council and
the directors to the finances of our Society and I would like to know which
Council members voted for the employment of an architect with such vague
terms of reference. And, since the changes are required because the Government
insists that the size of the Council be increased, perhaps the Government
should provide some financial help.
John E. Balmford
Past President and Honorary Auditor
Royal Pharmaceutical Society |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal