| · Intervention recording
· Packaging
· National Health Service
· Remote supervision
· Council election
· Fitness to practise (3)
· Education
Letters to the Editor
|
Fitness to practise
Pharmacists unlikely to be unusual among other professionals
From Dr C. D. R. Dunn, MRPharmS
Oh for the benefit of hindsight! My article, “Fitness
to practise procedures examined” (PJ, 6 May, p541), arose in part from a day-long
training module I ran in February and March for professional, lay and
legal panel members of the Family Health Services Appeal Authority. In
preparation for this well-received module, I had several detailed but
informal discussions with various people associated with the Department
of Health. I signed off the proofs of the article on 28 April in a version
that took account of comments from the PJ’s managing editor and
from reviewers whom I understand he had consulted at both the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
At that time, 1 May remained as the likely date the second draft Statutory
Instrument was likely to be laid in Parliament to implement primary care
trust supplementary lists for pharmacists. And, of course, on 10 May
there was the ministerial statement indicating that this SI was being
deferred.
Jonathan Buisson (PJ, 13 May, p566) may well be correct in his assumption
(hope?) that no one will require duplication of fitness-to-practise declarations
to be made to both (local) PCTs and (nationally) to the Society. However,
it seems to me unlikely that community pharmacists will be unusual among
primary care professionals in having to make declarations only to a national
body (with somewhat stricter criteria than the draft SIs) giving PCTs
no local powers of sanction. And would that be fair on individual pharmacists
when the only sanctions that may be imposed would have a national impact — fears
eloquently expressed by Graham Southall-Edwards (PJ, 13 May, p564)? Perhaps
colleagues may care to review (and to submit comments on) the draft
Section 60 order to see what
may be in store but, in doing so, they should remember that it is by
no means clear that this draft is little more advanced in its implementation
than the draft SIs that were finally deferred on 10 May.
Christopher Dunn
Dursley,
Gloucestershire
Participate in Section 60 Order consultation
From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS
I was surprised to read the letter from Mandie
Lavin, the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s director of fitness to practise and legal affairs (PJ,
13 May, p565), responding to a Broad
spectrum article from pharmacist
and barrister
Graham Southall-Edwards (ibid, p564).
In her opening sentence, Miss Lavin claims that the Society welcomes
debate on regulatory developments but is most critical of “the
alarmist tone” of Mr Southall-Edwadrs’s article. In closing,
she goes on to suggest that pharmacy should be celebrating the dawn of
an up-to-date regulatory system and how regrettable it would be if a
lack of support undermined these crucially important developments.
Supporting a new, up-to-date regulatory system is one thing, but the
view that has been expressed by the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PJ, 15 April, p442), Graham Southall-Edwards and others, is that the
current Section 60 Draft Order contains certain proposals that are highly
unacceptable and which, in the view of our legal advisers, may raise
human rights issues for pharmacists.
If the profession is to support the regulations that govern it, then
they must be fair and proportionate. If the Section 60 Draft Order becomes
law, then a person suspected of murder will enjoy greater rights during
their investigation than will a pharmacist who, it has been alleged,
has made a technical error at work that resulted in no harm to a patient.
The consequence of this over-regulation is that eventually it could harm
the public interest through a variety of defensive measures, one of which
may be a reduction in the size of the pharmaceutical register.
What also makes Miss Lavin’s comments surprising is that they appear
not to be in accord
with the firmly held views of
many of the Society’s Council members and also the fact that an
official Society consultation exercise on the contents of the draft has
yet to run its course — consequently, the Society can surely not
yet have promulgated its view on the draft.
The Society would do well to understand that the public interest will
not be served if it just slavishly supports Government policy. The Society
has a responsibility to ensure an appropriate and workable balance is
achieved. The PDA will be working vigorously both within and outwith
the profession to do all it can to achieve this end and we urge all pharmacists
to make their voice heard by participating in the consultation.
Mark Koziol
Chairman
Pharmacists’ Defence Association
Regulation by consent and agreement, not by fear and mutual suspicion
From Mr J. Gentle, MRPharmS
Last week’s PJ (13 May) contained a Broad
spectrum article by Graham
Southall-Edwards (p564) and a reply in the letters pages by Mandie
Lavin,
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s director of fitness to practise and
legal affairs (p565).
The suggestion by Mr Southall-Edwards that the Society acts like the Sweeney
is amusing but not entirely helpful. Neither is the reply from Miss Lavin that “this
is a time when pharmacy should be celebrating the dawn of an up-to-date regulatory
system”. It is clear that there are widely differing opinions on these
new powers for the Society and there clearly remains a big job to do to convince
the members that these powers will be used judiciously and appropriately.
The Council has no wish to see members hounded and pilloried for minor transgressions
of regulations or the law but recognises that protection of the public and the
reputation of the vast majority of hardworking pharmacists requires swift and
appropriate action where necessary.
The Society has performed this role to the highest of standards and for a long
time, and will strive to ensure that it remains the responsible body to carry
out this statutory duty for the foreseeable future and beyond. Within the Charter
and the Section 60 legislation, the elected Council is responsible for ensuring
that the profession is regulated and the best way is by consent and agreement,
not fear and mutual suspicion. The Council will be stressing to the Department
of Health where we believe the Order needs amending, bearing in mind the results
of the consultation.
I would urge all members to take up the opportunity for a democratic say in the
consultation exercise currently under way. I would not want Miss Lavin’s
reply to lead members to believe that the Council has predetermined its final
position on the consultation. The Council will wait for the consultation period
to end and then act in the best traditions of Solomon.
John Gentle
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal