|
Chijioke Agomo is a locum pharmacist from London
|
Chris Cooper recently expressed his disappointment that almost 80 per
cent of registered pharmacists failed to cast their votes in the recent
Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council election (PJ, 27 May 2006, p624).
Although I understand both his disappointment and the need for more pharmacists
to get involved with key issues in pharmacy, the question remains: how
do we reverse the apathy shown by the members?
I have participated in and followed closely most of the recent Council
elections, and it has become clear to me that the poor response of pharmacists
highlights their lack of interest in the development and the running
of the profession. One way this problem can be solved is through better
engagement and representation of pharmacists. Presently most pharmacists
feel out of touch with the Society, with many complaining that its regulatory
role is dominating its representative role. There is also the general
feeling among pharmacists that the remaining control they have over their
work is fast eroding, with the public, the Society and the managers dictating
their roles.
This has, therefore, led to frustration, with some thinking that splitting
the dual role of the Society in line with other major professions both
here and overseas is the answer. Others argue that splitting this dual
role will weaken the Society to the detriment of the profession. However,
when you look at the performance of the British Medical Association and
its relationship with the General Medical Council, the American Pharmacists
Association and its relationship with the National Association of Boards
of Pharmacy, and other similar professional bodies both here and around
the world, I think the argument in favour of the dual role of the Society
is weakened. With the dual role of the Society, the same body that initiates
policies implements those same policies, without necessarily seeking
the opinion of the membership. In the split arrangement this is almost
eliminated, as there exists a consultation process between the regulator
and the representative body, thereby eliminating the possibility of abuse
of power and hence creating transparency and fair play.
At the same time, I am aware that splitting the functions of the Society
would not produce a body whose roles would mimic entirely those of the
BMA in terms of its ability to
negotiate salaries and terms and conditions, a role which is already
performed by other bodies in pharmacy, for example, the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee. However, I would hope that with time
and also with the support of all pharmacists, an emerging representative
body would be able to raise the profile and the morale of pharmacists.
From 26–29 June, the BMA, which is the representative body for
doctors, holds its annual meeting at Belfast Waterfront Hall. The agenda
of meeting includes open debate on issues such as
BMA strategy, nurse practitioners and pharmacist
prescribing, professional regulation, doctors’ pay, etc. It is
important that those pharmacists who support the dual role of the Society
follow this meeting, or at least the report of it, which I believe will
also be published on the BMA website, to see for themselves the benefit
of separating regulation from representation. The influence of the medical
profession in the UK, both in pay and in respect from society sustained
through the hard work of the
BMA, is much greater than that of the pharmacy profession.
Presently, it takes about seven years to train a pharmacist up to the
point of registration as a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
(when you add the two years of “A”-levels and the
preregistration year); a newly qualified doctor has spent just one year
more. Optometrists, lawyers and accountants usually
spend one year less at university than pharmacists.
It is, therefore, shocking when you try to compare these professions
in terms of pay and job satisfaction. At a time when GPs are paid between £80,000
and £150,000 per year, the fact that most pharmacists are unable
to get anything beyond the £40,000 mark, even with an additional
PhD degree or other postgraduate qualifications and experiences, is not
at all motivating. But at the same time, they all have similar mortgages,
loans and bills to meet. Is this the way we want our profession to remain?
I agree with Graham
Southall-Edwards (PJ, 13 May p564) and Mark
Koziol (PJ, 15 April p442): the present role of the Society does nothing for
members but creates fear with the resultant lack of confidence. As pharmacists
gradually move away from the familiar dispensing role to the challenging
and unfamiliar new roles, like medical reviews and prescribing, over-regulation
that is not balanced with proper representation becomes dangerous. To
excel, pharmacists will need all the support they can get, something
which proper representation can give.
Another important reason for pharmacists’ apathy could be the focus
of some of the candidates presenting themselves for Council elections.
At the moment, community pharmacists make up about 70 per cent of the
Society Register, and so far community pharmacy practice is not the most
inspiring area of practice, with some pharmacies being described, at
best, as shops. Moreover, there is ever-increasing pressure on pharmacists,
due to increases in the number of dispensed items and a continuous reduction
in the number of support staff available to maintain the dispensing process
and provide the new services. Many pharmacists, therefore, become disillusioned
with their jobs, with some retiring early and others going part-time
or even moving abroad.
It is these pharmacists who sometimes stand in Council elections. Some
of them seem to see Council membership as another form of career but
going through some of their manifestos indicates a lack of vision and
desire to better the welfare of pharmacists. With this happening, it
is not surprising that almost 80 per cent of pharmacists are not bothered
at all about voting in Council elections. This trend of course, is not
good for the profession.
Unless the profession develops a plan, perhaps, by splitting the outdated
dual role of the Society, which no longer seems relevant for present
realities, then I seriously doubt that the apathy will be reversed. Although,
the function of Society is not much affected by this apathy, at least
for now, it is possible that it could affect its very existence in the
near future. Most pharmacists have chosen this noble profession of their
own free will and not by compulsion, and so those seeking to be elected
as Council members must be willing to address the aspirations and fears
of pharmacists. By so doing, they will not only convince more members
to participate in Council elections, but will also have a better chance
of being elected despite their backgrounds. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal