| · 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 Journal
Get the history right
From Mr S. W. F. Holloway
If you are going to urge members to play their part in history, you
ought to get the facts of that history right. In your leading
article (PJ, 12 March, p286) you state that in 1934 “the Society took on
the responsibility for compulsory registration of pharmacists” and
that the changes of that year were the first major changes to the constitution
of the Council since 1843. Both these statements are wrong.
Since 1852 the Society has compiled the statutory registers of pharmaceutical
chemists. Between 1869 and 1954 it also produced the statutory registers
of chemists and druggists. It has never published a register of pharmacists
as such. Under Section 15 of the Pharmacy Act 1868 the title “pharmacist” was
reserved for those whose names appeared in the Register of Pharmaceutical
Chemists. Section 3(iii) of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act 1908 permitted
registered chemists and druggists to “take, use, or exhibit the
name or title of pharmacist”. Thus the Society first took on the
responsibility for compulsory registration of pharmacists in 1868 and
after 1908 all those registered by the Society were legally defined as
pharmacists. The Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 did not change this registration
process. Instead, it deemed, by Section 1, that “every person registered
as a pharmacist, shall, by virtue of being so registered, be a member
of the Pharmaceutical Society”. The effect of this clause was that
more than 7,000 pharmacists, who had previously enjoyed gratis all the
benefits of compulsory registration, were forced to pay the annual membership
subscription of the Society. Perhaps this is what you had in mind when
you wrote of “paving the way for regulation of the profession as
it is understood today”.
I am not going to list all the changes to the constitution of the Council
that occurred between 1843 and 1933. I will restrict myself to those
that were introduced by the Pharmacy Acts Amendment Act of 1898. This
Act gave all registered chemists and druggists, whether employers,
self-employed or employed, the right to become full members of the Society
and to be elected to its Council. Although the distinction between pharmaceutical
chemists and chemists and druggists was maintained by the statutory registers,
it lost its relevance in the constitution of the Society. The reservation
of two-thirds of Council seats for pharmaceutical chemists, introduced
in 1868, was abolished. The 1843 Charter provided that members should
elect the Council in person by attendance at the annual general meeting;
the 1898 Act introduced voting papers (and thus postal voting). The 1843
Charter provided that two-thirds of the Council should retire annually;
after 1898 only one-third did so.
The changes introduced in 1898 represent changes to the constitution
of the Council at least as significant as those of 1933 and 2005. There
is one major difference. In 1898 the changes made the Council democratically
accountable to the members of the Society; in 1933 and, even more so
in 2005, the Council became more subservient to the government.
Sydney Holloway
Leicester
Is this censorship by the back door?
From Mr G. M. Alexander, MRPharmS, and others
The letters columns of The Pharmaceutical Journal have echoed with an
unexpected silence recently on the apparently contentious subjects of
continuing professional development, the revised fee structure and the
related resignation of members from the Register.
It might appear that the members, like the meekest of lambs, have accepted
the ultimate wisdom of Lambeth’s diktats. What a welcome outcome
for the hierarchy, conveniently timed as it is, for the election period.
However, things may not be as straightforward as they seem. The Journal
has taken an editorial decision to publish no more letters on these subjects,
thereby effectively denying the membership their voice. The protests
of some of the authors of these unpublished letters have reached our
ears, and we have sympathy in particular for the following suggestion:
that a “tally table” be produced of letters received but
not published with a summary of the points made, and with what frequency.
We echo members’ concerns that The Journal’s position may
be leading to inadvertent censorship and creating a dangerous and undemocratic
precedent — one strangely reminiscent of the decision to stop publishing
letters and decline a Broad spectrum article from the Save Our Society
campaign at exactly the same sensitive period in the run-up to last year’s
election. This did nothing to prevent a landslide victory for SOS candidates
a year ago, and we are certain it can only strengthen our ongoing fight
for greater membership democracy, openness and transparency within the
Society today.
We would like to reassure members that we remain committed to addressing
their concerns about these issues and to encourage all the authors of
unpublished letters to send them to the Secretary and Registrar with
a request to provide copies to all members of Council.
Gerald Alexander
Council Election Candidate
Southgate, London
Shiv Bagga
Council Election Candidate
East Ham, London
Davan Eustace
Council Election Candidate
Solihull, West Midlands
John Gentle
Council Election Candidate
Shrewsbury
Andrew McCoig
Council Election Candidate
South Cheam, London
Bharat Nathwani
Council Election Candidate
Pinner, Middlesex
Graham Phillips
Council Election Candidate
St Albans, Hertfordshire
| |
The Pharmaceutical Journal’s editorial freedom is universally
valued and respected, and Journal staff, as custodians of the principle,
do everything they can to ensure that it is maintained.
Editorial freedom means we have the right to publish contributions from readers
and investigate stories, as well as the right not to, without fear or favour.
However, we have to produce an interesting and informative publication at the
same time.
Letters are published provided they are accurate and not defamatory. However,
when there is a topic of great interest correspondence inevitably becomes repetitive
and once that happens we only publish letters on that topic if they make new
points.
Contrary to what these correspondents assert, we have not taken an editorial
decision to publish no more letters on “apparently contentious” subjects.
Letters about the matters to which they refer began to be published in our issue
of 21 August 2004 and, after a surge in correspondence in the early part of this
year, have continued to be published weekly since. This does not strike us as “an
unexpected silence” and can hardly be described as “inadvertent censorship”.
Moreover, we have asked correspondents whose letters we decided not to publish
if they would like us to forward them to the Secretary and Registrar’s
office. Some agreed; others failed to respond and we believe it inappropriate
to forward letters addressed to the editor to any other party without permission.
The matter of our moratorium
on comment about the Charter early last year (PJ,
21 February 2004, p204) is a different issue. At the time, we were becoming
increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that the Society’s official
journal might be promulgating inaccuracies and misinterpretations which would
then be on the record.
We would not be doing the pharmacy profession any favours, hence our decision
not to publish anything while the High Court action was pending. It was entirely
coincidental that the moratorium fell during the Council election period and,
as these correspondents point out, it did the SOS candidates no harm.
If we may be frank, we are surprised that these correspondents should raise
this as an election issue when there are so many important issues for members
to consider.
As far as we are aware, publication of a “tally table” of letters
received is unprecedented and we question whether it would add value to any debate.
However, if these correspondents’ desire for publication in The Journal of such a table becomes Council policy then, since the editor is ultimately
editorially accountable to the Council, we might have to oblige. That would
be a sad day
indeed for the editorial freedom of The Pharmaceutical Journal.
Readers may be interested to learn that The Journal is establishing a new editorial
board which is designed to be a forum where members of the Society, members
of Council, members of Society staff and, indeed, members of The Journal staff
can
raise concerns about the performance of The Journal and the behaviour of any
party with an interest in The Journal. Full details of the constitution of
the board are due to be announced at the Council’s April meeting.
— EDITOR
|
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal