| · PSNC
· Antibiotics
· Packaging
· Medicines use reviews
· Smoking cessation
· Statistics
· Statins
· Drug misuse
· Agenda for Change
· Palliative care
· The Society (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Why may I not use my PhC title?
From Mrs D. M. Apps, MRPharmS
I have been in correspondence with the legal department of the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society and I have been advised that, should I retire
from membership of the Society, I will be unable to use the title “PhC” because
it is a restricted title under The Medicines Act 1968.
Although I can accept that I would no longer be able to use the title “MRPharmS” (unless
I remain on the Register as a non-practising member and I qualify the
title), I find it difficult to understand why the title “PhC” should
be any more restricted than that of my colleagues with degree qualifications,
eg, BPharm or BSc (Pharm), which I understand can be used with no restrictions,
whether or not the holder remains on the Register.
I believe that either all the pharmaceutical qualifications should be
similarly restricted or the conditions of the Medicines Act 1968 should
be reviewed so that the title of “pharmaceutical chemist” is
no longer a restricted one. Without membership of the Society and the
title “MRPharmS”, surely the qualification of PhC would only
be recognised by those who are aware of its existence, and the general
public, whom the Medicines Act sought to protect, would not make any
association with a practising pharmacist.
The legal department has been unable to offer any satisfactory explanation
for the anomaly and gave no reason why the degree qualifications should
not be similarly classified as “restricted”.
I realise that the number of members with my qualification is dwindling,
but I would be interested to hear the opinions of others who may agree
with me that their Society would appear to be penalising those members
who hold the Society’s own qualification.
Diana M. Apps
Weymouth, Dorset
| |
PHILIP GREEN, deputy secretary and registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, replies:
The Medicines Act 1968, Section 78, restricts
the use of certain titles. Section 78(5)(a) states that no person
who
is not a pharmacist shall take or use any of the following titles,
that is to say, pharmaceutical chemist, pharmaceutist, pharmacist,
member of the Pharmaceutical Society and Fellow of the Pharmaceutical
Society. As Mrs Apps states, the PhC is not a degree which would
have a free standing status. PhC is a recognised abbreviation of
pharmaceutical chemist — as such it is a designation, not
a degree, is encompassed by the Medicines Act, and cannot be used
by
anyone who is not on the Register. |
Fitness-to-practise agenda could be damaging to the public and the profession
From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS
Graham Southall-Edwards (PJ, 18 March, p322), Gordon
Appelbe (PJ, 4 March,
p264) and others have expressed concern about the relentless focus on what
has become known as the fitness-to-practise agenda. The idea seems to be
that if the Royal Pharmaceutical Society can be a tough regulator, then
not only will it be seen in a good light by the Council for Healthcare
Regulatory Excellence, but it will also benefit patients throughout the
land.
In some respects this focus on regulation may actually be against the public
interest and could yet prove to be the undoing of the Society for a number
of reasons:
· While the inspectorate is spending so much of its time on formal PACE
(Police and Criminal Evidence Act) interviews and heavy-duty investigations
of so many less-than-serious matters, few of them are finding the time
to advise, support and generally help pharmacists in the practice of their
profession as they used to only a few years ago. This is surely to the
detriment of the profession and the public.
· These days, increasing numbers of pharmacists who have previously had
an unblemished record are being embroiled in unpleasant and lengthy Society
investigations. Often, this is motivated by nothing more than a patient
who is pursuing a compensation claim or even because the patient considers
that the pharmacist has been rude to him. Worryingly, this process has
the effect of creating a disproportionately high level of stress on the
professional and personal lives of these pharmacists. We are aware that
subsequently some of these pharmacists choose to cease practising or even
to leave the profession altogether. This results in the loss of decent,
hard working and experienced practitioners at a time when they are desperately
needed by the profession and public alike.
· It may be that the Society will split into two — one side membership
and the other side regulation. If this were to occur, and if the Government
were to take on regulation, then membership of the Society could become
voluntary. In such an instance, I wonder how many pharmacists would contemplate
joining a body that hitherto took them to task so severely?
The Society would serve the public’s interest much more effectively
if it focused on helping pharmacists to improve their practice. There are
plenty of areas where the Society’s attention would deliver immediate
benefits to the public, such as tackling the dangers of inadequate staffing
levels in community pharmacies or, in our view, lobbying the Government
to stop the Health Act proposal to allow a pharmacy to operate in the absence
of a pharmacist. These are the types of issues that will make an immediate
and tangible difference to patients.
Many of the health care professional bodies have, rather like rabbits caught
in headlights, been unable to challenge some of the less sensible aspects
of the Government’s tough stance on regulation due largely to the
impact of the actions of one man — Harold Shipman.
I hope that it will not take too long for them to galvanise their thinking
and articulate a simple truism — a tough regulatory mantra is no
substitute for a well-developed, supportive and positive practice support
agenda.
Mark Koziol
Chairman
Pharmacists Defence Association |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal