| · Regulation
· Emergency contraception (3)
· Remote supervision
· Fitness to practise
· Medicines use reviews
· Council election (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Regulation
Pharmacy should be celebrating
From Miss M. Lavin
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society welcomes debate on regulatory developments
but is most disappointed to note the alarmist tone of Graham Southall-Edwards’s
article (PJ, 13 May, p564).
The provisions set out in the draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians
Order reflect the Government’s policy, which is to harmonise the
regulatory regimes across the various health care professions. This task
of harmonisation is a key concern of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory
Excellence.
The provisions on disclosure of information and interim orders, referred
to by Mr Southall-Edwards, and other provisions in the Order are standard
provisions, which most of the other bodies responsible for maintaining
registers of health care professionals have possessed for some time.
The Society is subject to the usual public law constraints: it has to
ensure that decisions taken are reasonable, proportionate and fair.
Article 54 of the draft Order sets out the powers to operate an interim
orders jurisdiction within stringent parameters. Interim orders will
only be made where it is in the public interest, in the interests of
the practitioner, or necessary for the protection of the public to do
so.
There is nothing unique or unprecedented in the granting of such public
protection powers to the Society. Primary care organisations have in
relation to providers, and will shortly have in relation to performers,
similar powers to suspend or remove persons from their lists.
Contrary to Mr Southall-Edwards’s assertions, Article 59 of the
Order gives specific powers for the provision of notices in respect of
hearings, and for the right of all registrants to be heard before a decision
to impose an interim order is made.
The Government’s consultation on the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians
Order is under way until 19 June. This gives all pharmacists, pharmacy
technicians, bodies corporate and the public the opportunity to express
concerns, reservations and, indeed, accolades about the provisions of
the Order.
A system with clear criteria, flexible sanctions and greater transparency
will provide greater certainty to the public and to practitioners alike.
This is a time when pharmacy should be celebrating the dawn of an
up-to-date regulatory system. Crucial to this is the backing of leading
commentators. It would be regrettable if a lack of support undermined
these crucially important developments.
Mandie Lavin
Director Fitness to Practise and Legal Affairs
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal