The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7356 p18
2 July 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 76K, Acrobat Reader

· Annual General Meeting
· Registration
· Pharmacology
· Controlled drugs
· Technicians
· Birdsgrove House
· Registration examination
· Revalidation
· Supermarket pharmacy
· Dispensing
· New pharmacy contract
· PCTs
· The Society

Letters to the Editor

Registration

Make your views known!

From Mr W. B. Rhodes, FRPharmS

I welcome the prominence given to consideration of the future fee structure in the report from the latest Council meeting, particularly the acceptance by the mover of the debate that the previous Council “got it wrong and owed members an apology”.

I further welcome the invitation from the editorial of the PJ, for members to submit their views for consideration by the Resource Management Committee when it next meets [on 21 July]. Time is not on our side and I would urge those who have views (who must at least include all those who overwhelmingly voted for a review at the branch representatives meeting last month), to submit them.

I also urge members to contact those who have been forced off the Register as a result of this debacle, so that they too can make their views known.

I would, however, dispute the statement in the editorial, which I accept is a correct report of what was said in Council, that “any reduction in fees recommended for one group will have to be paid for by the rest of the membership”. Taking this to its illogical conclusion we could eventually end up with a Register of only 17, and they would all be Council members who would have to pay the entire cost of running the Society. That would serve them right!

What should be considered is why the profit from publications is taken out of the equation and set aside for reserves, as a justification for the recent hike in fees. This profit is earned by the Society and is for the benefit of members, and putting money into reserves is too vague. Many existing members may never live to see just what these reserves are used for. To say that a reduction for one group means an increase for another is a gross oversimplification. What is important is income and profit. How much income have we lost, let alone prestige, by getting rid of long-serving, highly valued members and those who only work part time?

In Cheltenham we organise an annual “pill rollers” lunch for those who have served at least 40 years on the Register. The Society provides us with labels so that we can write to them. According to our social secretary who organises the lunch, last year she had about 70 labels. This year she had only 40. This appears to mean that, no, we haven’t had an outbreak of the plague(!), but that almost half of our long-serving members have come off the Register. What we have had is an attack of grief, sadness and disillusionment.

I would urge members to make their views known to a somewhat receptive Council, most of whose members stated in their election manifestos that a review must be undertaken.

Apathy or leaving it to others simply will not do. Make your views known!

Bruce Rhodes
Winchcombe, Gloucestershire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Annual General Meeting)

Next Topic (Pharmacology)