The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7392 p319
18 March 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· SOPs (3)
· Professional regulation
· New pharmacy contract
· Oxygen services
· Compliance aids (2)
· The profession (2)
· Workbreaks
· Boots/UniChem merger
· The Society (2)
· HealthWatch

Letters to the Editor

Professional regulation

Change does not guarantee progress

From Professor A. R. Michell, MRCVS

The outcomes of the Foster and Donaldson reviews are likely to include major changes to the regulation of health care professionals. What is essential, in the interests of logic and joined-up policy development, is that the validity of any new approach has to assessed against the perceived defects of the Kennedy approach, where these appear to be in conflict. As one who came to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council, committed to the importance of regulatory mechanisms in health care and enthused by the Kennedy principles of a modern regulator, I would hate to see them abandoned without detailed justification. It is only four years since “Learning from Bristol”, the Government’s response to the Kennedy Report, embraced those principles to establish “a modern framework that puts the patient at the heart of the process and gives the public greater safeguards.” Since this framework was established long after the crimes of Harold Shipman, there is no inherent reason for further change. I would hate to see these excellent principles overtaken purely on the grounds of a need to “move on”. We need sound reasons, especially if the “direction of travel” turns out to be radically different. Change does not guarantee progress.

Bob Michell
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Standard operating procedures)
Next Topic (New pharmacy contract)