| · Education (2)
· NHS funding
· Complementary medicine
· Electronic prescribing
· The profession
· Women in politics
· Packaging design
· Statutory Committee
· Annual general meeting
· Council expenses
· Regulation
· Section 60 Order
· Council election
Letters to the Editor
|
Regulation
More information please
From Mr P. Melnick, MRPharmS
Following on from Mandie
Lavin’s reply to Graham Southall-Edwards’s
Broad spectrum article (PJ, 13 May, p564 and p565) and the correspondence
arising, may I add some additional points?
It cannot be stated often enough that our Royal Pharmaceutical Society
has a reputation that is second to none for protecting the public. Every
pharmacist I know takes his or her responsibilities in this regard with
the utmost seriousness and diligence but it is worthwhile reminding ourselves
that the Society functions on our money, not the public’s, and
that the Society has responsibilities to us, too.
No matter how highfalutin a title directors of the Society may have,
they are ultimately servants of the membership and not the other way
around. The Society belongs to the membership, not to the directors,
and certainly not to the Department of Health, a misconception under
which it appears to operate.
When a barrister who specialises in pharmacy law writes of his concerns
about issues of great interest to us all, I do not expect the director
of fitness to practise and legal affairs to be as dismissive as she was.
What I do expect is a thoughtful response in plain English, readily understandable
by all, that clearly addresses those concerns. That is precisely what
we did not get.
Compare his “… provisions of article 54 mean that at any time
a pharmacist may see his or her employment and income bought to a sudden
halt by reason of an allegation that may subsequently prove quite groundless
…” with her “article 54 … 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 …”.
Well, Mr Southall-Edwards had just said all that so we did not really
need a repetition of the draconian powers this particular Article confers
on the Society. What worries me is not that it was said in such a cold
a manner, but that it appears that she regards these powers as a God-given
right. Miss Lavin failed to enlarge on what the stringent parameters
are or might be, she does not address how this Article might sit within
human rights legislation and she does not explain who would be responsible
for compensating a pharmacist falsely accused, and whose income had been
abruptly terminated. Alarmist? Personally, I do not think Mr Southall-Edwards
was alarmist enough.
I have never been afraid to stick my head over the parapet and I have
never hidden the fact that I was once struck off. But that was in the
past. What concerns me and, I suspect, others in a similar situation
is that having re-established ourselves, someone might choose to declare
us as unfit to practise, not to protect the public, but to protect themselves.
Perhaps Ms Lavin might care to address all the above points, please?
Perry Melnick
Ilford,
Essex
| |
HEMANT PATEL, President of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, responds:
The Society now has in place a new Charter, granted
in 2004. The Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2006 (Section
60 Order) will replace
the Pharmacy Act 1954 and will provide greater clarity in the Society’s
legislative powers. Taken together these will provide a contemporary
governing framework for the Society. The Charter and the legislation
both set out
duties to the public and to members (and, under the Section 60 Order,
to registrants).
I encourage members to contribute to the Department of Health’s consultation
on the Section 60 Order, which will end on 19 June. In doing so, I urge correspondents
to concentrate on the provisions in the draft Order. There is no suggestion in
the legislation that sanctions will be applied other than following due process.
We must all recognise, however, that the main purpose of the Society’s
powers in relation to fitness to practise is for the protection of the public.
It would be unfortunate if a proper debate on these important provisions
was obscured by personal criticism. Both the Council and the staff are committed
to the proper exercise of the powers which are conferred upon the Society.
The Council has the benefit of expert staff. I have complete confidence in
the ability of the staff to implement the rightful decisions of the Council
and of
the new fitness-to-practise committees that will be established under the
new legislation. It is in the interests of both the public and the profession
for
pharmacy to have a credible and competent system of regulation. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal