| · Adverse effects
· Labelling
· North East London LPC (3)
Letters to the Editor
|
North East London LPC
Will the Society investigate?
From Mrs G. A. Clezy, MRPharmS
The independent inquiry into the body which represents pharmacies in
North East London has exposed a catalogue of irregularities in its financial
accounts and governance (Health Service Journal, 6 October). This inquiry
has been widely reported in the press. The committee’s secretary,
Hemant Patel, is also the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s President.
The Society’s Code of Conduct for Society Council members is intended
to ensure that members of Council must avoid any conduct that impairs
the ability of the Council to perform its functions or to enjoy the confidence
of the public, the profession or government. Whether Mr Patel or the
North East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee agree with the findings
of the enquiry is not the point.
Has Mr Patel not brought our Society and its members into disrepute?
Will the Society be carrying out its own independent investigation into
the conduct of its member?
Gabrielle Clezy
South Godstone,
Surrey
Accountable for their actions
From Ms M. Khan
It seems that the President is in a bit of bother after the recent article
(PJ, 24 September, p364 PDF (70K)) and subsequent letters with
regard to his fitness to practise in this role, upon the investigation
of several
complaints
against the North East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee, of which
he is a member and more specifically, both treasurer and secretary.
I completely agree with Andrew Burr’s comments (PJ, 8 October,
p439 PDF (120K)) and his response (PJ, 15 October, p480). He correctly points out
that since the President is also the LPC secretary and treasurer for
the North East London LPC, about which a serious complaint has been raised,
and also the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, it most certainly
undermines his leadership of the profession. Undoubtedly, the correct
action in the interests of the profession would have been for him to
step down immediately until the full investigation had concluded.
Hassan Argomandkhah’s point (PJ, 15 October, p480) that Mr Burr
is “not a contractor in the NEL LPC, nor is he directly or indirectly
affected by any of the decisions of the LPC” is irrelevant. Mr
Burr, as I do, has every right to comment on the leadership of the current
President, as a paying member of the Society, after reading the published
article.
Andrew McCoig (PJ, 15 October, p480) states that the London Forum has
been engaged in trying to settle this long running dispute without trying
to attract too much attention and is worried about the unnecessary glare
of public speculation and premature judgement. He should look closer
to home and at the judgement of the thousands of members of the Society
on the actions of their President representing their professional body.
Mr McCoig also suggests that the cleverly disguised letter from Gillian
Hawksworth et al (PJ, 8 October, p442 PDF (120K)) was
an indirect attack at the current President. It seems quite clear to
me
that one
should practise
what one preaches and if the current President agrees with the Society’s
Code of Ethics, ie, that “pharmacists must ensure that they behave
with integrity and probity, adhere to accepted standards and professional
conduct and do not engage in any behaviour or activity likely to bring
the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession”,
then he, as Mr Burr did, should stand aside for the sake of the profession.
It is the whole constitution of the NEL LPC that has brought the profession
into disrepute, not Mr Burr’s comments. There is no point in trying
to hush up the wrongs that have been committed in running of the NEL
LPC. The fact is that the situation got so out of hand it had to have
an official investigation and independent review that the damage has
been done.
However, as Gary Boorman pointed out in his response to Andrew Burr (PJ,
8 October, p439 PDF (120K)), criticism should not only fall with Hemant Patel personally
nor as the President of the Society, but each of the NEL LPC members
during 2002–05: Shiv Bagga, Herman Benjamin, David Blyth, Gary
Boorman, Alan Castell, Philip James, Imran Khan, Mukhtar Manji, Saiqa
Mughal, Rajiv Pahwa, Bakul Patani, Atul Patel, Jignesh Patel, Mayur Patel,
Nishit Patel, Prakash Patel, Raj Radia, Surinder Singh Kalsi and Jim
Thomas. As a matter of principle all members should stand down as they
are accountable for their actions in bringing about this review and should
consider the consequences on the running of the LPC and the profession
as a whole.
If any of the constituency did not agree with the running of the LPC
they should have resigned to show their disapproval, as did the late
Robin Cook when he did not agree with Tony Blair’s decision to
invade Iraq in 2004.
Mariam Khan
Leicester
Advice for the President
From Mr M. E. Q. James, FRPharmS
As Edward Mallinson says (PJ, 22 October, p512), there are a number of
issues raised by the report of the inquiry into the North East London
Local Pharmaceutical Committee, and the need for resignation in such
circumstances as these is always a matter of judgement. However, confidence,
like other attributes, is something which once lost is difficult to regain,
and there is always a time during which any individual or organisation
is damaged by allegations, however unfounded.
It is my view that Hemant Patel has done at least as good a job as President
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as most others, and considerably
better than some. However, he has, in what any reasonable observer will
see as a related function, been the subject of serious allegations, and
the inquiries are, I understand, not finished yet.
Some years ago I was in a similar position, over (I thought) unfounded
allegations concerning the conduct of the Citizens Advice Bureau of which
I had been, for most of the period under review, chairman. During the
period of investigation I was advised, and accepted the advice, to take
no part in either the affairs of that bureau, or any other CAB activities
until such time as the matter was resolved. Eventually I was cleared,
although, hindsight being a wonderful thing, there are always too many
things which, on looking back one realises could have been done better.
Eventually a review cleared me, and I was able to return to activity
and am now, apparently, again considered to be in good standing.
At the time I was extremely hurt at both the situation and the advice
and I had the sympathy and support of friends. However, looking back
I am glad that I did stand back; had anything been proven it could have
been extremely embarrassing for those with whom I was associated and
not for the good of the service as a whole.
My position was by no means as high profile as our President’s
and I do not tell this tale to show what a good fellow I am. I tell it
because, having been there myself, I am certain that, if at the time
of his election, Mr Patel knew the investigation was under way he should
not have accepted the Presidency and, if it came up later, he should
have declared the position and stood aside.
We are currently reviewing our Code of Ethics; most of it, naturally,
refers to issues around the supply of medicines. However, in 2005, when
many pharmacists work in an information handling and management areas,
rather than physical, directly patient-related ones, we need to look
at the consequences of pharmacists’ actions much more widely.
Hence, given the ongoing investigation, I agree with Mr Mallinson: our
President should step down. He can, as David Blunkett has proven, come
back.
For the record, and before I am accused of being in league with, or part
of some cabal, I gave the majority of my votes in the last few elections
to Save Our Society candidates.
Miall James
Coggeshall, Colchester |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal