Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7343 p392
2 April 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 140K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Anticoagulation services
· RFID tagging
· Repeat dispensing (2)
· Council election (5)
· PI insurance (2)
· Generics
· Prescription charges
· Medicines for children
· The Society
· CPD
· The register (2)
· The Journal (2)


Letters to the Editor

The register

Let retired pharmacists use the title “doctor” (Mr M. Samson)

Bring back the part-time fee! (Dr B. B. Shetewi)

Let retired pharmacists use the title “doctor”

From Mr M. Samson, MRPharmS

There has been a lot of correspondence recently, including my own, in The Daily Telegraph concerning the use of the title “doctor”. It was agreed that this title is a correct definition for those persons earning a PhD, whereas physicians and dentists may use this title as a courtesy, in spite of not having a doctorate but having the appropriate bachelor degrees. I understand that a small amount of confusion occurs with less enlightened members of the public if a pharmacist with a PhD correctly calls himself or herself “doctor”. Since they can easily dispel this confusion, they ought to be able to use this title at all times.

Might I, however, make a further suggestion that all pharmacists, when retired and no longer a “threat” to the public, be permitted to use the courtesy title “doctor” in recognition of their past heroic services. This, I suggest, would adequately compensate for the loss of their PhC and MRPharmS, etc, designations on retiring.

Michael Samson
Worthing, West Sussex


Bring back the part-time fee!

From Dr B. B. Shetewi, MRPharmS

I contacted the registration department at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society for clarification about retention fees. I am retired and I work a maximum of 12 hours a month delivering training on safe handling of medicines. I was informed that I still have to pay the total fee of £256. Twelve hours a month is equivalent to 3.84 weeks a year, if we take a week to be 37.5 hours. This means that I have to pay the Society £66.67 a week for the privilege of having MRPharmS after my name.

I hope the membership elect enough new councillors to replace whoever brought this new regulation into force and I hope they can bring back a part-time registration fee. Let us hope common sense will prevail in our Society.

B. Shetewi
Leatherhead, Surrey

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (CPD)
Next Topic (The Journal)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal