| · 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
|
The Society
PhC certificate is the property of the recipient
From Dr I. Ab I. Davies, MRPharmS
Philip Green, in his reply to Diana
Apps (PJ, 15 April, p442), appears
to be under a misapprehension in stating that PhC is a recognised abbreviation
for pharmaceutical chemist.
Prior to a university degree in pharmacy (BSc, BPharm, MPharm) being
recognised as the academic requirement for registration as a member of
the Pharmaceutical Society, the Council appointed examiners to oversee
the Society’s Qualifying Examination — the PhC — success
in which provided part of the requirement for registration with the Society
(the other part requirement being an apprenticeship in pharmacy; postgraduate
training in modern parlance). The designation PhC was an academic qualification
on a par with a Higher National Certificate or Higher National Diploma
(or even a degree in the minds of some recipients). In those days, candidates
with a university degree in pharmacy were required to sit the Society’s
forensic (legislation) examination in order to gain a PhC to enable them
to register as members of the Society.
The certificate provided by the Society stated: “This is to Certify
that the Examiners appointed by the Council under the provision of the
Pharmacy Act 1954 having examined (name) are satisfied that he (she)
has sufficient Skill and Knowledge to be registered as a Pharmaceutical
Chemist under the Pharmacy Act 1954.” Registration as a member
of the Society is mandatory in order to use the title “pharmaceutical
chemist” or any of the other titles proscribed by the Medicines
Act 1968 for use by “no person who is not a pharmacist”.
Indeed the certificate of registration as a member of the Society must
be returned when one ceases to be registered or upon the death of the
member. The PhC certificate, on the other hand, remains the property
of the recipient.
Iolo Davies
Ballygowan,
Co Down
Is the Society's PhC advice correct?
From Mr G. W. S. Davie, MRPharmS, and Mr J. P. Hewitt, MRPharmS
Is the reply given by Philip Green to Diana
Apps correct (PJ, 15 April,
p442)? Having taken the PhC examination, we each received a Pharmaceutical
Chemist Diploma which was, like the MPharm of today, a free-standing
academic qualification which, again like the current MPharm, did not
entitle us to practise as pharmacists.
It was only after completing the Pharmaceutical Society preregistration
requirements and paying the membership fee that we became entitled to
use the designation MPS (MRPharmS today) and commence practising. It
is an identical procedure to that pertaining to the MPharm achieved by
students today.
We do accept that PhC has become a rarely used abbreviation for a pharmaceutical
chemist and it would contravene the Medicines Act 1968 if used by any
individual falsely posing as a pharmaceutical chemist. However, PhC is
also used as the abbreviation for the Pharmaceutical Chemist Diploma
and, in our view, in that context it would not be covered by the Medicines
Act 1968. As long as the individual has achieved that particular academic
qualification they have the right to use PhC in exactly the same way
as MPharm graduates can place MPharm after their names.
We both intend to retire from the Register in the next two years or so
and we will have no hesitation in placing PhC after our names. If the
Society decides to waste members’ money by taking action against
us, and our assumptions are found to be incorrect, we will have to cease
writing PhC after our names. If this is the outcome we will substitute, “Holder
of a Pharmaceutical Chemist Diploma (by examination)”. That will
be a statement of fact that even the Society cannot dispute.
Gordon Davie
Bromley, Kent
John Hewitt
Sevenoaks, Kent
Letting down the membership
From Mr G. W. Herdman, FRPharmS
I can understand the frustration of Diana
Apps in not being allowed
to use the title PhC (PJ, 15 April, p442). This qualification, which
is what it was, was then transferred in my case to an FPS or, as it is
now termed, FRPharmS.
Despite my age, I am still on the Register and therefore entitled to
use the title, but surely there is something wrong somewhere. The Society
is saying that despite a qualification being earned by examination, the
recipient is no longer entitled to use it once he or she retires because
the Society has a registration that uses the same terminology.
Members of the medical profession still call themselves “doctor” after
they cease to practise, and few of them were doctors by qualification
even when registered. A further example would be members of the armed
forces who still continue to use their titles of rank that they held
while active way into their retirement.
I have read Philip Green’s reply, which, in my opinion, is the
easy way out. Let us be honest, it does not apply to many pharmacists
and time will eventually take care of them as, like me, they must all
be in their seventies.
It is the Society that is wrong if it has allowed this anomaly to occur
and it is its own membership that it is letting down.
G. W. Herdman
Sunderland,
Tyne and Wear
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal