Proposed change to “practising” definition shelved
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has decided not to proceed with its proposals to amend the Byelaw definitions of “practising” and “non-practising” pharmacists by removing references to “the science of medicines” (PJ,
13 August, p199,
and 3 September, p293).
At the October
Council meeting, the Secretary and Registrar reported
that since the gazetting of the proposed changes the Society had received
seven letters opposing the proposal and The Journal had published four
letters. There had been significant concern about the move among academic
pharmacists and in the Academy of Pharmaceutical Scientists.
In addition, advisers to the Privy Council had indicated that they were
not convinced of any compelling reasons for the change. They suggested
that such a significant change needed to be made in a more considered
way. They also pointed out that the definition of “practising” would
be raised in the consultation on pharmacy’s draft Section 60 Order
under the Health Act 1999.
During debate, Bob Michell said that in August he had strongly supported
the amendment because he had seen a distinction between the academic
science of pharmacy, which existed and evolved without the say-so of
the Society, and the duties of a practising pharmacist, which clearly
lay with the Society. In a sense, his concern had been an element of
academic freedom. “However,” he continued, “the precise
constituency that I thought would take that view is outraged and clearly
therefore this is a very dead duck indeed and I think we should take
note and move on.”
John Gentle said that he had received personal e-mails from industrial
pharmacists who were not happy about the proposal. If it were to go ahead
the Council needed to explain the reason behind it.
Seema Agha said that the Council’s Section 60 working group was
concerned that the definition should be right because it linked in with
indemnity insurance. Academic pharmacists did not know what they were
covered for or not covered for.
Colin Ranshaw said that he, too, had had many e-mails from industrial
pharmacists. The Council had taken a long and tortuous route trying to
get the definition of “practising” and “non-practising” correct
and had
got it wrong — causing a ruffle with the constituency it was perhaps
trying to help. The Council should withdraw the proposal or get the science
of medicines put back in.
The Secretary and Registrar said that, if the Council did not wish to
forward the amendment, the current definition would remain. But the consultation
on the Section 60 Order would provide an opportunity to consider the
definition fully in time for a decision next year.
The Council agreed not to forward the proposed amendments to the Privy
Council. Further work on the definitions would be done in the context
of the Section 60 Order consultation.
The President said that the Council had inadvertently upset many pharmacists.
As President he apologised. The Council had tried to be helpful but things
had not turned out as intended.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal