A price worth paying?
Just for a moment, reflect on what views patients and the general public, and pharmacists themselves, might hold about the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. It is well recognised that community pharmacists are highly respected as individuals but does the general public know what the Society is and what it does?
These questions are not entirely academic. The General Medical Council
has commissioned a tracking survey to provide systematic feedback about
its policies and performance, and the most recent results are based on
surveys of the general public and doctors carried out in April and published
last month. The survey revealed that three quarters of the general public
has confidence in the way that doctors are regulated, although only half
of GPs and hospital doctors share that confidence — the medical
view is that the GMC is biased, does not treat doctors fairly and is
over-burdensome.
Now let us speculate what similar surveys might reveal about the Society.
Many people might not recognise its name but once they understood that
the Society regulated pharmacists the chances are that they would give
it a high rating. Indeed, the fact that people are not aware of its existence
may suggest that, unlike the GMC, the Society has managed to do its job
effectively and quietly without any major scandals.
What might pharmacists think? There will always be individuals who find
any regulation burdensome and unnecessary, but the chances are that at
least three quarters of the profession would say, currently, that it
protects the public and that pharmacists are treated reasonably fairly.
The Journal receives few letters complaining about the way an individual
has been treated by the Statutory Committee, which could suggest the
the profession has confidence in the outcomes of disciplinary hearings.
It must be hoped that the current legislative changes do not undermine
members’ confidence in the way they are regulated. Despite the
current rumblings in The Journal, it must be accepted that, as pharmacy
matures as a clinical profession and members undertake much riskier tasks
(such as independent prescribing), the public may require greater protection.
As the Section 60 Order consultation draws to a close, members will have
to consider whether or not greater public protection, in the form of
tougher regulation, is a price worth paying for expanded professional
roles. But does tougher regulation have to include investigations into
seemingly inconsequential past misdemeanours?
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal