| · DTB
· Education
· Independent prescribing (2)
· Medicines use reviews (2)
· Section 60 Order
· Council election
· The Council
Letters to the Editor
|
Section 60 Order
Time to look again at “practising” and “non-practising”
From Mr D. C. Shenton, MRPharmS
As the consultation period on the draft Section 60 Order draws towards
its close, I note how few letters about the Order have appeared in your
columns. Even the basic question of splitting registration and membership
has stimulated little correspondence. Of course, I have no information
on the volume of comment made direct to the Department of Health or to
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. New law ought to provoke plenty of reaction.
In the issue for 20 May you carried an article (p587) explaining that some
current Byelaws will be replaced by Rules made with the enabling authority
of the Order (when in force). Registration will be covered by Rules and
every Rule will be put forward in draft for consultation. Thus, I can expect
an opportunity to make representations on the precise definitions of “practising” and “non-practising“.
I have long been concerned about this because I see the existing Byelaw’s
terms as hopelessly broad. It is like a law stating simply that the citizen
must be a good driver, with no other traffic legislation in place.
I do realise that it may be politically expedient, for good and all, to
have an all-embracing provision the Royal Pharmaceutical Society can point
to as watertight, but tacitly leave the individual member to interpret
it as judgement and conscience dictate. Nevertheless, I do urge any members
who, like me, believe the two categories can and should be properly defined
to collect examples, from direct or general experience, ready to submit
as part of comment on a draft Rule. I mean examples of advice or opinion
in the areas of health care or medicine, which a non-practising pharmacist
might provide, that would (a) rest on the professional background, (b)
be in the clear interests of the enquirer to have answered in the manner
described, (c) be accompanied by expression of the pharmacist’s limitations,
and (d) not be covered by the “putting health at risk” exemption
that exists already.
David Shenton
Staines,
Middlesex |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal