The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7403 p661
3 June 2006

Society summary

AGM calls on the Council to promote high ethical standards

The annual general meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, held on 24 May, has called on the Society's Council to “promote high ethical standards in the business and profession of pharmacy” — an amended version of the tabled motion.

Members had originally expected William Gould, of Stockton-on-Tees, to move that “this meeting calls upon the Council members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to adopt and implement standards of behaviour which are not only ethically high but are seen to be high” (PJ, 20 May, p609). Mr Gould, however, was not present and, after some debate, Michael Burden, of Leicester, was allowed to propose the motion in his stead.

Mr Burden told the meeting that the motion reflected the deep concern that our leaders should demonstrate behaviour of the highest ethical quality. If we as a profession are to hold our heads up high, we must have obvious recognisable and demonstrable evidence that our leaders have adopted and are implementing these elevated standards, he said.

The motion was formally seconded by Edward Mallinson, of Glasgow.

Carwen Wynne Howells, of Narberth, successfully proposed that the motion be amended because to use the term “adopt” implied that currently all members of Council were not in fact exercising high ethical standards at present, and she did not believe that that was what was intended by the proposer of the motion. Using the term “promote” would be far more acceptable to members.

Addressing the meeting, Gillian Hawksworth, of Huddersfield, and a past president of the Society, said that amending the motion had not altered what she was going to say. There is great importance in understanding the relationship between one’s own priorities and those of your organisation, and demonstrating attitudes and behaviours which will encourage alignment between the two. Who would have thought it necessary to have put such a motion to the Council of a public regulator, she asked. It merely scratched at the surface. “I will mention no names,” she said, “but while I am sure that those members of Council whom I know personally will have no problem with what I am saying, I think those who must look to their conscience (and you know who you are) should be ashamed that there has had to be the necessity for this motion to be tabled.” She wondered how those who set the standards for the profession could not understand the standards of attitude and behaviour expected of them on the Council of the Society. In a world of ethical and moral accountability and responsibility, they must know what is expected [of them] as temporary custodians of the future of the profession. The crucial question was, “Who carries the respect of whom and why?” Urging the meeting to support the motion, she said that what she had witnessed at first hand was an unravelling of authority and respect, not only externally, but internally in terms of the profession’s declaration of faith and optimism in the future through such behaviour.

Supporting the motion, Jonathan Buisson, of Hook, and a member of the Society’s Council, said: “We are the leaders of the profession and we show leadership. And if we must show high moral standards, that is what we do, and will do, and will continue to do.”

The motion was put to the vote and carried.

Afterwards, Graham Phillips, of St Albans, said that as a member of the Society’s Council it saddened him to see a previous president of the Society apparently trying to besmirch the reputation of current Council members with unsubstantiated allegations. The motion she had spoken to was not the motion that was agreed by the meeting, which he was happy to support.