Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7347 p518
30 April 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 75K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Dispensing doctors
· Council election (5)
· GlaxoSmithKline
· Statins
· Salamol
· Supervision
· The Society
· The Journal


Letters to the Editor

The Society

DoH circulars are wasted on non-practising pharmacists

From Mr E. P. Crabtree, MRPharmS

I recently received a circular from the Department of Health regarding “Pneumococcal immunisation of older people and risk groups”. Since I am a non-practising (I prefer “retired”) pharmacist, I am at a loss to know what I am supposed to do with this information. Yet apparently my name and address were put on the list of recipients by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

It seems to me that putting non-practising pharmacists on the DoH list just results in a waste of public money.

Philip Crabtree
Huddersfield

 

PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

I welcome this feedback. It is early days for the two-part Register. We could restrict the mailing list for items such as professional communications, safety notices, etc, from the government to the practising part of the Register. However, not all those members on the non-practising part are permanently retired and, indeed, not all the permanently retired will wish to be excluded from sources of information. Some like to read and write to The Pharmaceutical Journal, for example. Moreover, many on the non-practising part of the Register are on maternity leave or career breaks and may find such information will help ensure they are not unaware of something they may need to know when they return to practice. This is the only comment we have received on this matter and we would be interested in other views — for or against.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Supervision)
Next Topic (The Journal)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal