A question for Parliament
Last week, The Times carried an investigation into the funding of lobbyists behind a number of parliamentary groups. The All-Party Pharmacy Group works closely with lobbying company Luther Pendragon, which is jointly supported by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, the Company Chemists Association and the National Pharmacy Association, and came under scrutiny by The Times (p64). The investigation suggested that Luther Pendragon wrote many of the APPG’s reports and, consequently, the APPG was unduly influenced by pharmacy.
The Times investigation, no doubt, was prompted by the current shenanigans in Washington DC, where lobbyists — who have always played a more integral role in politics than their equivalents do in Britain — seem happy to bribe politicians to further their cause. There is no suggestion that that game goes on in Westminster. But it would be naive to think that the APPG would not need to rely on the profession to make sure that the group is fully informed — and the profession employs Luther Pendragon to do that.
The APPG is one of the most successful groups around. Its chairman, Howard Stoate, regularly comments that meetings are better attended than those of other all-party groups (possibly because there are many organisations involved that wish it success). Moreover, the APPG is acknowledged to have raised the profile of pharmacy within Westminster. Arguably, this is partly because working with the APPG is one of the few occasions on which leading national pharmacy bodies come together.
Whether or not the system is appropriate is a question for Parliament, not pharmacy. People (and governments) can be susceptible to persuasion (the road transport lobby is particularly good at using its influence, for example). In a perfect democracy, individual MPs would do all their research themselves and would never rely on interested parties to inform their views. Then there could never be any accusation of inappropriate influence.
What the success of the APPG does reveal is how effective pharmacy can be when it speaks with one voice. The bodies behind it should turn their attention to influencing other areas: maybe they might consider employing jointly a PR company that promotes pharmacy to the national media and ensures that patients really understand the new roles of pharmacists and pharmacy.
Assisted dying on the pharmacy agenda
Assisted dying is an issue that is unlikely to go away. There is a Bill going through the House of Lords and, earlier this week, it was on the agenda for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s law and ethics committee. As a result, The Journal decided to run a News feature about the position taken by other health professions (p67). By chance, a study has been published this week revealing how doctors are involved, directly and indirectly, in the deaths of the terminally ill (p63). A debate in pharmacy is long overdue because, by default, pharmacists will have played a part. What are your views?
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal