| · 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
|
The Society
Lost prestige
From Mrs P. M. North
After 43 years on the Register and as a Fellow of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, I resigned last year as I felt unable to sign the declaration
for a non-practising pharmacist, because the definition attached to that
category expressly ruled out the activities as a volunteer in my local
hospice that I had undertaken on my retirement.
I took this step with great sadness and in the hope that, if enough members
felt as I did, the wording might be amended. It was therefore with dismay
that I read in the PJ (3 September, p296) that the proposed
alteration to the byelaw relating to the non-practising pharmacist still does not
take account of the following point raised in my original letter of resignation.
For the past 10 years, I have worked as a volunteer on the ward of my
local hospice. As I am on the ward, I am dealing closely with patients
and clearly am “involved in patient care”, sometimes giving “advice
in relation to … health care”. I do not offer opinions on drugs
or therapeutics.
When I went to an interview for the post, I was under the impression
that the hospice management was delighted to “employ” me,
especially with my background. I have an advantage over many volunteers.
For example, I have an understanding of the problems associated with
cancer patients with brain tumours, who are left without the ability
to formulate words, and with motor neurone patients, who are unable to
speak and are without muscular power to indicate what they need. Incidentally,
I regularly attend training programmes as required by the hospice management
and movement. It is not everyone who can work regularly and closely with
terminally ill patients, and surely my background is an advantage.
There must be other (ex) pharmacists who are volunteers in the health
care area. If, like me, they abide by this flawed byelaw and therefore
cannot be “non-practising”, is it not the profession that
loses prestige and status?
Pamela North
Bookham,
Surrey
Former Council members blocked from participation
From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS
We are seldom served a helping of overt sour grapes, but here is a brimming
dishful. Our Royal Pharmaceutical Society seeks members to participate
in an “appointments’ group” which will nominate the
members of our future statutory committees. Without any reason being
given, applications from former members of the Society’s Council
will not be considered. Current anti-discriminatory legislation abounds,
for example, the Race Relations Act, the Disability Discrimination Act,
and the Human Rights Act. Indeed, the Society advertisements in the back
of the of PJ conclude with the statement “the Society is an equal
opportunities employer”. Really?
The prohibition also displays a certain metropolitan bias since the exclusion
does not apply to officers or members of the Scottish or Welsh Executives.
If it did I would be doubly damned since I am the only person ever to
have served as chairman of the Scottish Executive and as president of
the Society.
In trying to penetrate the thinking of those who thought up this proscription
I wondered if whatever slight reasoning behind it might rest on the fact
that the banished people may be familiar with the likely applicants and
I must question who else may fall into the same category. Does such familiarity
not also reside in the multitude of pharmacists who have served voluntarily
on the Society’s committees and working parties, education, community,
hospital, veterinary and so on. I suggest that these pharmacists may
just have realised who are the gems and who are not within their individual
circles.
What about past and present members of the Society’s staff? Are
they uniquely blinded to personal traits of others with whom they have
served? Does the same blinkered outlook not apply to pharmacists in the
civil service who have no small part in framing the way in which our
profession operates?
So the chain goes on, to primary care trusts, other pharmacy organisations,
Society branches etc. Indeed any self-respecting, paid-up cynic could
be excused for feeling that those who have devoted time and attention
to their profession were being punished.
So, will there be a loss to the membership interests due to this arbitrary,
anonymous, discriminatory decision? Of course there will. Life exists
outwith and after participation in Council for those who have moved on.
Some are magistrates and some are lay members of other professional disciplinary
bodies, some act on various appeal panels and some on negotiating bodies.
Others become involved in academia and administration. Some participate
in national professional matters and others in the European or international
sphere. All of these areas relate to objective considerations of the
best interests of both the public and the profession. In addition, former
members live in the real world and are all consumers in the broadest
sense of the word. Some undisclosed “numpties” have chosen
to cast aside this fund of understanding and experience. It could be
that former Council members would not apply and, if they were not denied
their membership rights, they may be found wanting if they did. They
should be allowed to take that chance.
Would I apply? What grumpy old man would not consider £4,400 gross
(plus expenses) for 22 days on behalf of our Society a worthwhile exercise?
But then again, perhaps not.
Ian Caldwell
Larkhall,
South Lanarkshire
| |
ROB DARRACOTT, director of corporate and strategic development
at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
It is expected that
the new fitness to practise arrangements for pharmacists and pharmacy
technicians will be enshrined in statute next year. The Society
is therefore creating shadow committees so that the new regime
can be
operational as soon as possible.
Key to all the new regulatory arrangements for the health care
professions is public confidence. This means that it is necessary
that no conflict of interest
or indeed any perception of conflict of interest should arise. Hence, no Council
member or previous Council member, who will have been involved in deciding
the Society’s policies on standards and fitness to practise,
should take part in appointing those who will have to determine
whether pharmacists or pharmacy
technicians have breached those standards.
Sadly this could mean that some otherwise well-qualified individuals are excluded
from this particular role on this occasion. |
Seeking new and better ways to undertake CPD
From Dr P. V. Chatfield, MRPharmS
Inspired by John Henderson’s letter (PJ, 17 September, p339) and
by his call to increase our efforts towards fulfilling our duties to the
public, I immediately placed a copy of the latest PJ in the smallest room
in our house. Other members may be interested to know that I am now able
to painlessly perform an additional 20 minutes of continuing professional
development per day. Of course the su doku and ‘The Nation’s
100 Best Poems’ have had to be consigned to the bedside table. But,
wait a minute, would not that be a good place for my wife’s copy
of the PJ?
You may think I jest but how else are we going to be able to meet all our
commitments if we do not actively seek new and better ways?
Peter Chatfield
Gosforth,
Newcastle upon Tyne |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal