| · Branded prescribing
· Antibiotics
· PSNC
· Medicines use reviews
· New technologies
· Boots/Alliance merger
· The profession
· Section 60 Order
· The Society (3)
· Information
· Health committee
Letters to the Editor
|
Section 60 Order
Loss of integrated role would be a tragedy
From Mr A. Kershaw
Christine Gray (PJ, 22 April, p472) has it spot on: the loss
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s integrated role would be a tragedy
for the public and for the pharmacy profession.
The case for this is plain: a well-represented profession is strongly
in the public’s interest and a well-regulated one is strongly in
the profession’s interest. Successful integration of the two roles
(and from what I can see the Society has a track record good enough,
at any rate) offers the best chance of getting a satisfactory result.
Set aside the penny-in-the-slot thought that combining the two roles
must compromise both. Representation, in a body of the Society’s
standing, is not about trade union activity — negotiating terms
and conditions, taking up special cases and the rest. It is about promoting
standards and providing inspirational professional leadership — something
like the role of a royal college. That is the standing I believe the
Society has in the public’s eyes.
The fundamentalist view — that representation and regulation cannot
co-exist in the same organisation — is not actually the norm in
professional regulation. The split role exists mainly in the health care
professions, and there the regulatory performance has been patchy, to
say the least. As Dame Janet Smith pointed out powerfully in studying
the Shipman case, split roles are no guarantee that professional influence
will not sometimes be overbearing.
But look outside health care —
to surveyors, veterinary surgeons, engineers and many others. There you
know which body to approach, both to hear the profession’s voice
and to bring influence to bear upon its members. The public know, in
other words, whom the profession will (grumbling sometimes) listen to — the
body which, by combining regulation and representation, is most likely
to take the profession with it. Why? Because co-operation always produces
a better result than confrontation.
I am interested not in theories but only in what works. And I am not
arguing for professional self-regulation — as a concept that belongs
on the “Antiques Roadshow”. I am arguing for effective, professionally
led regulation, in which lippy lay Council members like me exercise influence
by asking naive questions and helping the profession see, occasionally,
what it looks like. I think it works. Prove me wrong if you think otherwise.
Alan Kershaw
Lay member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal