| · Adverse events
· Supermarket pharmacy
· Research
· Regulation of medicines
· OTC statins
· Pricing (2)
· Pharmacy practice
· CPD
· Reciprocity
· Registration examination
· Veterinary pharmacy
· The Society
· Birdsgrove House (5)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Save our Society court action costs
From Mr R. Blyth, FRPharmS
I have been pondering a statement made by the now former president of
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society at the recent annual general meeting (PJ,
4 June, p685). What he said was that the Society’s responsibilities
are towards all its members, many of whom would not have supported the
court action undertaken by the four pharmacists from the Save Our Society
group. Therefore, he stated, the Society was unable to offer any financial
support for those four pharmacists who had incurred significant costs from
the legal action against the Society and individual Council members.
The statement seems to imply that the Society can only discharge its responsibilities
towards its members when they are one hundred per cent in agreement with
the way in which those responsibilities are discharged — an unlikely
policy. Let us also remember that a special general meeting of the Society
in 2003 was unanimous in opposing the pursuit of a proposed new Royal Charter.
The then Council ignored that vote and court action was thus the only option
left.
To return to the question of the Society’s responsibilities towards
all its members, the evidence does not support the contention that the
Society can act only on behalf of all pharmacists, when all are in agreement.
The Society acts and expends resources on individual pharmacists when it
bestows medals and fellowships. It will be argued that this is a special
case. So, consider another case.
If the Society can act on behalf of all pharmacists, how did it, in 1976,
act in support of two pharmacists against a practice of dispensing doctors?
The Journal emphasised in a leading article on that occasion — the “special
contribution made by the Pharmaceutical Society to the settlement of the
difficulty, demonstrating once again the value to pharmacists of a single
united body representing all pharmacists from those in villages to those
in cities” (PJ, 27 November 1976, p484). So, is it not, in fact,
a single united body made up of individual pharmacists, each from time
to time having problems reflected on occasion in the concerns of other
pharmacists?
The Council members against whom the SOS action was taken were covered
by the Society’s liability insurance. In the end, however, the uninsured
SOS four had to pay the Society’s costs as well as their own. Their
final bill was around £300,000 against original estimates of £50,000
for each side. The Society’s costs exceeded £300,000 but were
eventually reduced to about £250,000.
The Society and its members have benefited enormously from the actions
of the SOS four, namely, a Royal Charter substantially friendlier to pharmacists
than the one submitted by a discredited Council. Of the 13 elected members
of the Council who voted to petition for the failed new Charter, none is
now on the Council. Four did not seek re-election and nine were defeated
in recent elections. Those were the pharmacists who, well intentioned as
I have no doubt they were, clearly were too ready, and without hesitation,
to bow to the wishes of Westminster and Whitehall.
I believe that the members of the Society owe the SOS four not only a debt
of gratitude, but a financial debt as well. Can the present Council not
make amends by an ex gratia contribution to the costs of the four? Or,
at the very least, sponsor an appeal to the members to contribute towards
these costs?
If pharmacists should wish to anticipate such an appeal, cheques should
be made payable to SOS Campaign and sent to Save Our Society, PO Box 2641,
Birmingham, B1 3BR.
Robert Blyth
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal