The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7376 p635
19 November 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 100K, Acrobat Reader

· The Guild (2)
· Gender
· Prescriptions
· Medicines use reviews (3)
· Supervision (2)
· Skin cancer
· North East London LPC
· Birdsgrove House
· The Society (2)

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Quiescent rather than non-practising

From Dr I. Ab I. Davies, MRPharmS

It saddens me to think that there are members of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society who consider that when a pharmacist decides to retire from practice, after probably more than 40 years service to the profession, he or she should not be allowed to refer to themselves as a “pharmacist”.

Why not permit those retired pharmacists to continue to refer to themselves as pharmacists by opening a register for “honorary pharmacists”. On retirement, pharmacists could elect to be included on such a register for a nominal one-off fee. Should they wish to they could purchase The Pharmaceutical Journal.

Maybe pharmacists should be referred to as practicing (P) pharmacists or quiescent (Q) pharmacists if it is felt that such a distinction were necessary.

Iolo Davies
Newtownards, County Down

Increased retention fees for 2006

From Mr J. Meulendijk, MRPharmS

The increases in retention fees for 2006 would lead one to conclude that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is not particularly fond of non-practising members and would possibly rather do without them. Well, let this non-practising member help it along a little bit: from 2006 I shall be doing without the Society. A long and steady process of alienation thus comes to its logical — if sad — conclusion.

I cannot help thinking that many other members would follow this example were they not dependent on their membership for their living. As that is not my predicament, I am pleased to thank the Society for providing me with only six years’ worth of irritation.

Johannes Meulendijk
Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Birdsgrove House)