| · Prescribing (2)
· Compliance (2)
· Residential care
· Metered dosage systems
· Reciprocity
· Proton pump inhibitors
· Registration examination
· The Society (3)
· New pharmacy contract
Letters to the Editor
|
Reciprocity
End of agreement — alternative suggestion
From Mr R. W. Nash, MRPharmS
In The Journal of the 27 August (p268) was the announcement that the Privy
Council had approved
ending reciprocal registration rights with long-term
friends of the UK: Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Why were such
draconian and discriminatory measures necessary?
At about the time the measure was going to the Privy Council, the British
and Australian prime ministers were discussing further co-operation between
their two countries. The Royal Pharmaceutical Council’s move hardly
seems to be in the spirit of co-operation. Are similar provisions going
to apply to doctors, dentists and allied health professionals?
One wonders who dreamt up the measures. One also ponders about which member
(if any) of the Council travelled to Australia or New Zealand to gauge
their standard of education or practice of pharmacy? After all, the Council
now assumes that their standards are a year lower than those of the UK — they
are of course comparable to those of the UK. Did anyone go into a pharmacy
and peer around? Had they done so, they might have been embarrassed. For
one thing there is not the abject waste associated with the British system.
Perhaps the members of the Society thought they might get cheap labour
by using skilled pharmacists from the Antipodes during their compulsory
training before registration, but this is unlikely to happen. A recent
article in the Australian Journal of Pharmacy said that Australian women
pharmacists would be better off working as bar attendants.
There can be no argument with competency based registration, unless you
come from the EU of course, where (no doubt) standards must be as high
as those of the UK, otherwise their graduates would not be able to enter
the UK. My understanding is that Canada now requires proof of experience
and passing an entrance examination. Australian registration boards have
had a similar approach: proof of a year’s experience and passing
an entrance examination, although this is now likely to change. The Australian
examination can also be done overseas.
Would not a more sensible approach be for the Council to negotiate common
requirements with the Canadian and Australian registration boards? A realistic
approach was outlined on p216 of The Journal, on 20 August.
Rob Nash
Dunoon, Argyll |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal