| · The Society (9)
· Birdsgrove House
· Reciprocal registration
· NAWP (2)
· Pharmacy technicians
· Community pharmacy
· Statutory Committee
· Internet sites
· Complementary medicine
· Pharmacy graduates
· RFID pilot
· CPD
Letters to the Editor
|
National Association of Women Pharmacists (NAWP)
NAWP is neither a pressure group nor a single-interest group
From Dr C. E. Heading, MRPharmS
In response to J.
L. Honigman (PJ, 7 May, p543), it might be helpful
to explain that the National Association of Women Pharmacists is neither
a pressure group nor a single-interest group. It is most easily understood
as a resource for the pharmacy profession, but one with a strong awareness
of gender issues. Rather like a library, NAWP’s roles include education
and training, providing information on specific issues, helping with
investigations, broadening horizons, allowing pursuit of specific interests,
and prompting research.
Certainly our profession can be proud of its equal opportunities history,
but UK pharmacists live in a world where gender consciousness is still
remarkably absent. At our recent annual conference we were addressed
by a speaker from an equivalent organisation of women pharmacists in
the Netherlands. In the course of the presentation the Dutch pharmacist
named the medicines most commonly prescribed in the Netherlands to men
and to women. To assist sound medicines management, such information
is readily available to pharmacists and others in the Netherlands. In
the UK in contrast, no such information is readily available to pharmacists
and clinicians. I doubt if many readers of The Journal know whether the
UK position has been reached by default or as the result of informed
debate, but an organisation such as NAWP is at least in a strong position
to ask for answers.
Christine E. Heading
Immediate Past President
National Association of Women Pharmacists
NAWP is not an anachronism
From Dr B. S. Symonds, MRPharmS
I can only conclude from the letter from J.
L. Honigman (PJ, 7 May,
p543) that he has little knowledge of the nature and activities of the
National Association of Women Pharmacists, which is celebrating its centenary
this year. NAWP is not a “sexist” organisation, membership
being open to all pharmacists regardless of age, race or gender, and
it is far from being an anachronism.
In addition to supporting better working conditions for women, notable
firsts achieved by the NAWP include refresher courses for women returning
to work, a booklet about careers for women pharmacists and a mentoring
scheme. The association still provides a valuable network that helps
women realise their potential within pharmacy and in public life.
NAWP has moved with the times and now extends its sphere of action beyond
the profession. Through membership of such organisations as the Women
Returners Network, the Pennell Institute, the Association for Women in
Science and Engineering, and the Women’s National Commission, NAWP
can act as a voice of pharmacy in many public arenas. A close association
with, but independence from, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society gives it
the freedom to fulfil this role.
Finally, I am presuming that an unplanned typographical error resulted
in J. L Honigman referring to “the National Association of Women’s
Pharmacists”. By implying that NAWP is an Association of Pharmacists
for Women, his letter may have come closer to the truth of the matter
than he intended.
Sue Symonds
Nottingham
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal