| · Antibiotic resistance
· Registration examination
· Registration
· Pharmacy practice
· Hospital disinfection
· Reciprocity (2)
· National boards
· Regulation of medicines
· Hospital pharmacy (2)
· New oxygen contract
Letters to the Editor
|
Reciprocity
Sacrificed to political correctness
From Mr I. W. A. Dean, MRPharmS
It is too early for the obituary for the reciprocal arrangements between
Britain, Australia and New Zealand, but that did not stop PJ writer Dawn
Connelly from dancing on their grave as she chortled “Calling all
Antipodean pharmacists: your
one-year countdown has begun” (PJ,
2 July, p10).
However, it is not too early to contemplate a suitable epitaph. Contemplation
must include a review of the history of the arrangements as well as consideration
of the reasons given by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society for their demise.
For generations, practising in Britain as part of an overseas working
holiday has been a professional rite of passage for thousands of Australian
pharmacists. It has been a professionally rewarding and enriching experience
for them. Correspondence to the PJ suggests a similarly enriching and
rewarding experience for the British profession, eg, Kathryn
Carter and Ken Ball (PJ, 16 July, p82).
Similarly, for thousands of British pharmacists, practice in Australia
as part of a working holiday has also been a rite of passage. Interestingly,
New South Wales experience suggests that about half of all working holiday
British pharmacists later return as permanent residents.
These rites of passage have been made possible by the reciprocal arrangements.
The announcement by the Society that it would unilaterally cancel the
reciprocal arrangements on 30 June 2006 was, therefore, especially poignant
for Australian pharmacists — past, present and future.
The decision also has ramifications in respect of the shortage of pharmacists
in both countries.
Dawn Connelly got it absolutely right when she wrote that a two-year
working holiday visa will no longer be a viable option for Australian
pharmacists. From 30 June 2006, Australian pharmacists will be required
to spend two years in university training, supervised practice and examinations,
at a significant cost, before being permitted to practise in Britain.
This means that registration in Britain will be an option only for those
Australian pharmacists who are able to enter as migrants taking up permanent
residency.
In its press announcement, the Society claims that the reason for its
action “lies in the application of European and British legislation,
legal precedents and UK Government policy”. The announcement goes
on to say that “the current reciprocity agreements could be construed
as discriminatory and risk legal challenge”. The Society claims
its decision has been made following advice from its Adjudicating Committee.
What is curious about the Society’s action is that, I understand,
other health care professions are neither taking nor considering similar
action. Apparently, cutting off their noses to spite their faces has
not occurred to them, so the steady exchange of dentists, doctors, nurses
and physiotherapists will continue.
Why pharmacy and pharmacists are being singled out is, therefore, not
at all clear. One can only surmise that the Society knows something that
other professions do not. Or vice versa. Perhaps the Adjudicating Committee’s
advice is intended only to provide justification for an unpopular decision — a
decision that may have been taken for other reasons not stated.
The announcement is apparently being met with concern by British pharmacists.
For example: “The statement [of the Society] that the Adjudicating
Committee could be challenged in the courts alleging prejudice against
other overseas pharmacists is pathetic” (Alan
Bentley and Anthony Evans, PJ, 14 May, p582).
It has been often said elsewhere that organisations have no permanent
friends, only permanent interests. The Society has, of course, every
right to decide that its permanent interests make it time to cut its
traditional ties and to embrace Europe completely.
But to imply that the need to cut those ties is being imposed, or might
be imposed, by third parties is disingenuous. As well as being disrespectful
to its own members, it is discourteous and patronising to its former
colleagues in Australia and New Zealand.
It is time for the Society to come clean and publish its real reasons.
If it is not doing so because the reasons may not be palatable to British,
Australian or New Zealand pharmacists it is even more disrespectful,
discourteous and patronising.
Setting aside sporting rivalries, Britons and Australians are the most
compatible of people, blending seamlessly and unnoticeably into each
other’s communities. The same is true of British and Australian
pharmacists. The pharmacy culture of both may be superimposed on each
other with the same academic, professional and ethical standards yielding
the same seamless and unnoticeable blending.
For the past decade and more, the international profession has been actively
seeking ways to harmonise international pharmaceutical competence. The
reciprocal arrangements are the envy of the profession in other countries.
It is astonishing, therefore, that the Society, one of the supporters
of harmonisation, has decided to discard such a successful and long-standing
programme.
I have been a member of the Society continuously since 1959. Until now,
I have not known of a Society policy decision that was not made after
an open debate during which sound reasons were clearly articulated to
and by members. My sadness that after so many years a most worthwhile
and mutually beneficial arrangement is to be discarded is exceeded only
by my disappointment that the Society has failed in its duty to be open
with its members.
Measured against the reasons given, the Society’s decision to discard
such a valuable resource appears to be without foundation. I say again,
it is time for the Society to come clean.
A suitable epitaph? Reciprocity: sacrificed to political correctness.
Ian Dean
North Turramurra,
New South Wales,
Australia
Where is the evidence?
From Mr F. S. Ahmedali, MRPharmS
As a non South African, I was shocked to read Monty
Goldin’s letter
(PJ, 16 July, p82) claiming that the degrees obtained by South African
pharmacists are substandard.
I obtained my degree from a British university and had the pleasure of
sharing part of my preregistration year with a South African. I did not
find this preregistration pharmacist’s knowledge to be “inferior” at
any time. In fact I was sometimes astounded by the training they received
at the South African institution. I found several gaps in my training even
though I attended a “superior” institution in Britain. I have
worked alongside several pharmacists educated in South Africa and have
found their knowledge to be on par with and sometimes exceeding that of
some British trained pharmacists.
Can Mr Goldin provide evidence for his claims?
Fayaz Ahmedali
Brighton |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal