| · CPPE
· Controlled drugs (2)
· The Society (2)
· Fellowship
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Concern about disciplinary process
From Mr D. J. A. Morgan, MRPharmS
Amandip Sidhu (PJ, 10 June, p678) applauds the decision of the Statutory
Committee not to
take any action against Mustafa Bhaiji (PJ, 27 May,
p640). However, he draws the wrong conclusion in praising the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, stating that “any pharmacist … can be assured that
he can practise without fear of persecution”.
Clearly that is exactly what any pharmacist cannot guarantee. Any misdemeanour,
however trivial, appears to mean that the individual is hauled up before
the Statutory Committee to answer for their actions, however well intentioned.
The fact that he or she may subsequently be let off, or found not guilty
of whatever he or she is accused of, does not lessen the fact that the
individual may be brought before the committee with all the attendant
cost, stress and strain.
The manner in which the Society appears to treat what it considers to
be improper behaviour by pharmacists, however trivial, causes me concern.
Why is it so frequently necessary to involve the full committee? The
Bhaiji case cried out for common sense to be used but, instead, the full
weight of the disciplinary process was brought to bear on the unfortunate
man. Did the inspectorate have to involve the full committee? Has it
no discretion to involve the committee in only the most serious cases
of misconduct, sorting out lesser misdemeanours with common sense and
a firm hand?
Many pharmacists will be looking at the Bhaiji case and thinking “there
but for the grace of God go I”. The attitude that any evidence
of possible wrongful behaviour has to be tested by the committee is not
one that I can support. I believe that the Bhaiji case raises issues
of concern to the membership that should be addressed. A statement of
clarification, not justification, should be issued so that pharmacists
who exercise, as we all do, their professional judgement on a daily basis
for the benefit of the patient and society should not do so in fear of
an over-enthusiastic disciplinary procedure immediately being imposed
upon them.
David Morgan
Guildford, Surrey
Lack of real diversity action plan puts Society at risk
From Mr B. D. Nathwani, MRPharmS
In February 2005, over 16 months ago, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council asked the Society’s Corporate and Strategic Development
(CSD) Directorate to develop an action plan regarding diversity. Some
12 months later, in February 2006, the Council (of which I was then a
member) was reassured that a diversity audit would be carried out as
a precursor to this action plan being submitted. The February 2006 paper
stated that “as a necessary first step, therefore, a formal diversity
audit has been scheduled”.
The paper finally presented to the Council in June 2006 admits that no
formal audit had taken place. The very word “audit” means
a searching examination of information and in this context would have
provided a baseline from which the Council would have been able to identify
points of concern and move the diversity agenda forward.
The audit that the Council had agreed to accept as the first part of
a process by noting the paper of February 2006 was at a whim (or, as
the paper states, “on reflection”) discarded.
So, some 16 months after the Council’s request, the CSD Directorate
presented to the Council in June 2006 the following “action plan”:
(i) to have “two or three Council champions” to promote diversity
and (ii) that the Society should now draft and agree a diversity strategy.
It was more than clear in the paper presented to the Council in February
2005 that the Society needed to do more to address diversity effectively
and meaningfully. The statistics showed it then and it is again borne
out by statistics published in the 2005 annual review. The baseline audit
would clearly have identified this. In fact, the legal obligation by
employers to do more than pay mere lip service to diversity issues was
highlighted by the Commission for Racial Equality in its latest statutory
obligations for employers published in April 2006.
Why is this important? Well, look at the diversity breakdown for appointments
to the new Section 60 statutory committees by the “independent
selection” process. The diversity information collected and as
presented is so useless as to make it irrelevant and meaningless. This
failure by the CSD Directorate to carry out the instructions of the Council
in a meaningful and timely manner leaves the whole of the Society exposed
to risk. Let us hope that a Council-led working group (guided by external
experts in this complex area) with real teeth is put into place by the
Council to forward its desire for a real and effective diversity action
plan.
Bharat Nathwani
Pinner, Middlesex
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal