| · The profession (2)
· Pharmacists in the media
· North East London LPC (2)
· Reciprocity (2)
· Funding
· Brand swapping
Letters to the Editor
|
Reciprocity
Society's points are groundless
From Mr I. Dean, MRPharmS
How encouraging it was to read in Graham
Phillips’ assurances
(PJ, 10 September, p308) that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is continuing
to work with pharmacy regulators overseas and that Society staff will
be meeting with colleagues overseas to explore mutually acceptable ways
forward. Apart from that welcome news, Mr Phillips’ letter raised
more questions about the Society’s policies than it provided answers.
The Society states that “existing agreements could be construed
as being discriminatory and risk legal challenge” although John
Ferguson’s thoroughly researched and thoughtful article (PJ,
24 September, p374 PDF (70K)) shows this statement to be groundless.
Mr Ferguson cites
the application for judicial review by the Court of Appeal, made by pharmacists
from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The application was heard in 2001, so
presumably their Lordships had the benefit of reading the 1999 Health
Act. Mr Phillips has stated that the Health Act was “a key part
of our thinking”. Apparently it was not a key part of the court’s
thinking.
It is hard to reconcile the Society’s assertion that the reason
for its action “lies in the application of European and British
legislation, legal precedents and UK Government policy” with “the
current reciprocity agreements could be construed as discriminatory and
risk legal challenge”. Mr Ferguson comprehensively refutes the
former assertion; while, in respect of the latter, the question has already
been definitively answered in the Court of Appeal and . One would have
expected the Society’s legal department to have apprised Council
of the court’s decision and its impact on Council’s concerns.
Reliance on possible discrimination as a reason for its decision is therefore
beyond disingenuousness.
“Other health care professions are neither taking nor considering
similar action.” Mr Phillips claims this assertion of mine is not
correct, stating that “the reverse is true and the General Medical
Council and the General Dental Council have done the same thing [as the
Society]
recently for the same reasons”.
Try as I might, I can find no evidence that either the GMC or the GDC
will institute the Society’s draconian provisions by requiring
Australian doctors and dentists to undertake a university course and
internship in order to be registered.
The GMC and the GDC and their Australian counterparts advise that the
system known as “assessment of qualifications” continues
to apply for both authorities, with an important addition: Australian
doctors and dentists are now required to complete the “International
English language test”. Despite the English test, the flow of doctors
and dentists between Australia and the UK and vice versa is expected
to continue.
“
There is a clear difference between pharmacy graduates in the UK and
those from Australia and New Zealand.” Mr Phillips bases this assertion
on the fact that in the UK registrants are required to be educated to
master’s level whereas education in Australia and New Zealand remains
at bachelor’s level. This is playing with words. The “clear
difference” lies in labelling practically identical four-year degrees
as a master’s degree in one country and a bachelor’s degree
in the other. The core subjects are effectively the same in content,
duration and rigour. The differences in non-core subjects appear to be
regional and minor. In both Australia and the UK, registration as a pharmacist
requires four undergraduate years, followed by 12 months of supervised
practice, followed by successful completion of a registration assessment
process.
On these comparisons, it is not correct for Mr Phillips to say that Australian
(and New Zealand) pharmacists have received a different education from
their UK counterparts. The difference, surely, is one of labelling rather
than of the quality, content, rigour or duration of the pharmacy education.
Mr Phillips has been appointed chairman of the Society’s Education
Committee. It is to be hoped that his responsibilities do not include
the unenviable task of justifying Council’s unjustifiable decision.
John Ferguson’s timely article suggests that Council’s decision
was made on grounds that were not reliable. Council should review that
flawed decision and re-evaluate the advice on which it was based.
Ian Dean
North Turramurra,
New South Wales, Australia
Challenging “English as their first language” statement
From Ms K. Samuel-Smith
I write in response to Barrie Smith (PJ, 1 October, p407 PDF (160K)). While wholeheartedly agreeing with most of his comments on Australian
and
New
Zealand pharmacists,
based on my experiences both in this country and Australia, I fail to see
the accuracy or relevance of his assertion that: “They also speak
English as their first language.”
I have worked with Australians from Chinese, Greek, Indian and Maltese
backgrounds who do not necessarily speak English at home.
I have also just carried out a straw poll among my British-qualified pharmacist
colleagues, and over half of them claim a language other than English as
their mother tongue.
The last time I checked, the language standard for overseas-qualified pharmacists
wishing to practise pharmacy in Great Britain was still level seven of
the International English Language Testing System. Requiring a pharmacist,
or any employee, to demonstrate a higher level of English fluency could
constitute indirect discrimination with regard to the Racial Discrimination
Act 1976. In addition, the Code of Ethics requires pharmacists and other
staff to be “sufficiently competent” in English, and additionally
recognises that “competency in other languages common to the area
is desirable”.
Mr Smith may well want to check that his apparent prejudices are not reflected
in his (or his employer’s) recruitment practices.
Karen Samuel-Smith
Community Pharmacy Development Manager
Newham PCT |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal