| · Waste disposal
· The profession
· New pharmacy contract (2)
· Medicines use reviews
· Pharmacists in the media
· Registration examination
· North East London LPC (2)
· BPC (2)
· Packaging
· Primary care
Letters to the Editor
|
North East London LPC
“Melt down”
From Mr R. M. Patel, MRPharmS
I read with concern the letter from the three past presidents (PJ,
8 October, p442 PDF (120K)) who believe that there will now be a “melt
down” at
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society for a number of reasons, and the Officers
of the Society, in particular, need to take action to avoid damage. I
do not fully understand the contents of the letter and I pose some questions
that they might like to consider.
Why has the letter selectively quoted Bill Scott? What he actually said, according
to the report in the PJ, was: “I need to reflect on what is in the public
interest. There must be confidence in the Society as a regulatory body.” He
also said that the Society’s long-term position would not only be affected
by public confidence. The long-term position is also affected by the Society’s
ability to lobby on behalf of its membership. This is sometimes inhibited by
its dual role. It therefore seems that the dual role is in jeopardy regardless
of what the Society does, as it is in the hands of the membership and the Foster
Review.
Why are the three presidents not on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council now? They were either not selected, because the membership did not
support their views on the Charter, or they retired.
Is Andrew Burr, who was a Council member until his defeat in the Council election
of 2004, working in concert with others to destabilise the Council by putting
unnecessary pressure on them?
In my view it would be quite wrong to ditch an able and a popular President
or get the President to resign. I hope he will not as he has done no wrong,
and even if he has, it should not lead to resignation. But the Council and
the membership would need a statement at some stage when all the facts are
available.
Rajanikant Patel
London
| |
ANDREW BURR responds:
It is nice to be popular and liked but
those two qualities alone will not Save our Society. There are
many leaders
who have led the troops up the hill only to march them down again.
Great leaders have the insight and judgement to know which battles
they can win and more fundamentally on which hill the battle is
actually being fought on. One need look no further than the Health
Service
Journal article (6 October) entitled “Pharmacy body under
fire”,
if they require any evidence that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
was caught up in the aftermath of the publication of the Bates
report and being brought into disrepute. The facts are available
in the
independent report and it now depends whether the Council and the
membership really want to see these through tinted spectacles or
as others outside the profession see them — clear cut and
awaiting the appropriate response. |
A number of issues
From Mr E. J. H. Mallinson, FRPharmS
The report of the enquiry into the North East London LPC has raised a
number of issues, not least of which is the position of the President of
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. It was surprising that the item in the
PJ (24 September, p364 PDF (70K)) highlighting the findings of
the report was not accompanied by an indication that the President had
resigned.
This
would
have been accepted practice in most professional bodies and the action
of an individual who truly had the interests of the profession at heart.
The Society, like other non-medical health care regulators, is the subject
of the Foster inquiry, which is due to report to Government by the end
of the year. It has never been more important that the profession is not
only beyond criticism but also publicly seen to be so. Are we to assume
that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council is backing the President’s
reluctance to stand down? If so, this shows an incredible lack of judgment
on the part of those who were elected on a “ticket” that sought
to protect the image and prestige of the Society.
In his letter (PJ, 15 October, p480)) Andrew
McCoig comments that “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
article in the Health Services Journal of the 6 October entitled “Pharmacy
body under fire” in the Governance section would lead an onlooker
to conclude that it has failed. More worrying is the direct link between
the secretary of the NEL LPC and the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain in a journal that has an immense readership in
all sectors of the NHS and beyond.
If the Society is to be spared the indignity of being drawn into a dispute
which is outwith its direct sphere of responsibility, Council should urge
the President to resign until the matter has been fully resolved. In his
opening address to conference in Manchester the President expressed his
passion for his chosen profession. Now is the time for him to prove it
and step down in the interests of the wider profession.
Edward Mallinson
Bothwell,
Glasgow
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal