| · Homoeopathy (5)
· Pharmacy practice
· Reciprocity
· NICE
· Retention fees
· Sexual health
· Media representation (3)
· Emergency supplies
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Improving the Society’s ability to represent pharmacists
From Mr A. J. Pothecary, MRPharmS
Recent correspondents to The Journal have suggested that the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society should work to ensure that pharmacists are able to have regular
breaks in the workplace. Although I would certainly welcome this, it is
probably not possible for the Society to become involved in matters like
this.
The Society was taken to court in 1921 by Mr Jenkin, a member of the Society
and of the Society’s Council. The court declared that it was not
within the power or purposes of the Society to undertake or perform several
functions, one of which was to regulate the wages and conditions of employment
as between masters and their employees who were members of the Society.
I believe that this legal precedent, although over 80 years old, would
prevent the Society from trying to ensure that pharmacists always receive
their breaks.
Unfortunately, this shows the awkwardness of the Society’s current
situation. It has always been supposed to regulate and represent pharmacists,
but it seems that representation has become increasingly difficult over
the past few years. The Society has never been able to act as a trade union
for community pharmacists, some of whom have probably joined other unions
such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW).
As a result, there is no one body that represents all pharmacists and does
nothing else. I think it may be time to reconsider splitting the functions
of the Society. The creation of a “General Pharmaceutical Council” along
the lines of the General Medical Council and General Dental Council, to
take on the current regulatory roles of the Society (ie, registering pharmacists
and technicians, fitness to practise, accreditation of educational courses,
and the inspectorate) would free the Society to represent the profession.
It could act as a trade union in a similar fashion to the British Medical
Association. Obviously membership of the Society would then become optional,
but if it could demonstrate that it gives value for money then there is
no reason why it should not be successful.
Although the National Pharmacy Association does a valuable job providing
services and representing the profession, it is primarily an employers’ organisation.
Pharmacy regulation in New Zealand has recently undergone a similar split,
and doctors and dentists in this country have been regulated this way for
many years, so what do we have to fear?
Andrew Pothecary
Gosport,
Hampshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal