| · The profession (2)
· Pharmacists in the media
· North East London LPC (2)
· Reciprocity (2)
· Funding
· Brand swapping
Letters to the Editor
|
North East London LPC
Latest publicity does nothing constructive to heal current wounds
From Mr A. McCoig, FRPharmS
The letter sent and published last week from Andrew Burr (PJ, 8 October,
p439 PDF (120K)) was an unnecessary and untimely attempt to undermine our President
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in his other role as secretary to
the North East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee. There was also
another letter from Dr Hawkworth et al which, although more cleverly
disguised, threatened to accomplish similar collateral damage. I am grateful
that the editor chose to publish a detailed response from Gary Boorman,
chair of NEL LPC which helped to inject some balance to the debate.
The London Forum has been engaged in attempting to settle the differences
between NEL LPC and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
without trying to attract too much attention to this long-running dispute.
The latest sources of publicity do nothing constructive to heal the current
wounds and only serve those outside of our profession who would seek
to challenge our general credibility. If a solution is to be found and
matters resolved, then at least let us do it without the unnecessary
glare of public speculation and premature judgement.
I have been present at two contractor meetings of NEL pharmacists and
both have been extremely well attended. I gained the distinct impression
that whatever the rights or alleged wrongs of the LPC concerned, they
have the full backing of the pharmacists who attended the meetings.
This brings me to an important point. Those who complained about the
various governance issues in the conduct of the NEL LPC seem to have
a poor and disproportionate showing at these meetings. As secretary of
an LPC, I know only too well how difficult it is to engage and retain
Company Chemists’ Association membership and attendance at local
gatherings.
I know that many LPC secretaries will report similar experiences. LPC
meetings in many areas are dominated by independent contractor presence,
not because they are in the majority, but because they turn up.
The minutes record that the CCA nominated representative has failed to
show at the last four meetings of our LPC. The last representative simply
had to resign as his day work pressures did not allow him any spare time
to attend evening meetings.
Unless the alliance of multiple pharmacies can harness their workforce
and properly direct those willing to represent their interests at important
local meetings, then they must accept the wisdom of Harry Truman, past
president of the United States who said quite simply that “those
who turn up make the decisions”. I do hope the CCA take away some
important lessons from this débâcle.
As those who would wish to exploit the current situation regarding the
President, they may wish to note the following notice sent to me by a
customer via email: “This department requires no physical fitness
programme. Everyone gets enough exercise jumping to conclusions, flying
off the handle, running down the boss, knifing colleagues in the back,
dodging responsibility, and pushing their luck.”
Andrew McCoig
Chair, London LPC Forum
Member of Council, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Comparing apples with pears
From Mr H. Argomandkhah, MRPharmS
Mr Burr’s letter (PJ, 8 October, p439 PDF (120K)) tries to compare apples
with pears. He is not a contractor in the North East London Local Pharmaceutical
Committee, nor is he directly or indirectly affected by any of the decisions
of the LPC. And, yet, he is seemingly qualified to make comments about
its conduct and somehow manages to make a connection to the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s code of conduct for members of the Council .
If Mr Burr has any misgiving about corporate governance issues, then
he should look closer to home and remember the investigation of his own
conduct on the Society’s Council and the Puxon report in 1997 (PJ,
4 October 1997, p544). I also question his “impersonation” of
senior pharmacists by sending text messages on their behalf during the
petition I was organising in 2003 to give the membership the right to
vote on the new Charter. His role on the Council at the time was as ‘‘The
new Charter spokesman’’. I am qualified to make these comments
as I was there.
His direct attack questioning the integrity of our President smells of
cheap point-scoring against one of the few pharmacists I know that have
sacrificed their own career in pursuance of helping ordinary pharmacists
up and down the country.
His lack of understanding of the work of the local pharmaceutical committees
is evident. The LPC work is not unlike the work carried out by our Society
branches, which are mainly done on goodwill, trust and at best by covering
of basic expenses.
The decisions and actions of the LPC must be seen in that light, not
somehow linked to an ability to discharge one’s responsibility
as president. The President has the help of a fully paid up civil service
of more than 200 employees at Lambeth and two executives in Scotland
and Wales plus a Council of some 30 members, all of whom should be fully
supporting him at all times. Next time Mr Burr writes he should try to
compare apples with apples.
Hassan Argomandkhah
Liverpool
| |
ANDREW BURR responds:
I would suggest Andrew McCoig
read my letter again as it was written after careful consideration
of an independent
report
commissioned by a strategic health authority. Mr Boorman’s response
(PJ, 8 October, p439 PDF (120K)) was eloquent in its use
of spin — balance
would not be a word I would have used to describe his contribution.
It was not my letter that sought to undermine the position of our
President, but the actions of the officers of the LPC concerned. To
attempt to
mitigate
the facts by the multiple versus small contractor debate only serves
to highlight the author’s lack of understanding and appreciation
of the issues involved. I merely sought to express in public, that
which I had already expressed privately to the President, namely that
he should
stand aside till the matter is resolved and so end the shadow that
has been cast over the Society. Unlike Mr McCoig’s customer’s
department, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society demands standards, governance
and fitness to practise and that its President take the responsibility
such public office brings.
In response to Hassan Argomandkhah, I am absolutely the right person
to write about this, as I know exactly what it feels like to have to
put
the interests of the profession first. The Puxon Report in 1997 has
never been published and, although I have never accepted Mrs Puxon’s
conclusions, I have remained silent on the matter for eight years. I
can assure the
author that on the day the report was presented to me I knew it was
better to stand aside for the sake of the profession than continue to
fight a
rear guard action in the Council chamber. I was never going to win the
battle, however much right was on my side. My only regret is that eight
years on, electronic transfer of prescriptions still appears to be on
the distant horizon. Personal criticism comes with the territory in
pharmacy politics, but this is not about individuals, but about roles
and responsibilities
of public office and the overall image of the Society as a custodian
of governance and regulation. Two wrongs never make a right! |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal