|
· Professional regulation
· Code of Ethics (2)
· The profession (4)
· Community pharmacy (2)
· Multiples
· Accuracy checking
· CPPE (3)
· Medicines use review
· Emergency supplies (2)
· Controlled Drugs
· NHS
· Nutrition
· Fellowship
· The Council
· Retention fees
· Section 60 Order
Letters to the Editor
|
Fellowship
Panel of Fellows makes decisions based on distinction
From Mr R. J. S. Hazlehurst, FRPharmS
By publishing the letter from Ewa
Hopkins (PJ, 15 July, p75), you have
effectively identified Steve Williams as the object of her wrath, albeit
it was the decision of the Panel of Fellows which she criticised.
Since I retired from the panel at the meeting immediately before Mr Williams’s
proposal must have been discussed, I can also comment from personal experience
on the process, without fear of compromising what was, of course, a confidential
discussion.
Having been a member of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
for as long as Mr Williams, I can comment from personal experience on
his work as chairman of the funding and contract subcommittee.
I can think of no one who has more care and concern for his fellow pharmacists,
with a more thorough understanding of the detail, funding and other issues
underlying the new contract, than Mr Williams.
No one could have given more fully of his considerable ability and energy
for the advancement of community pharmacy. His knowledge and understanding
included a degree of pragmatism which Mrs Hopkins, it seems, lacks. He
realised and understood that it would be impossible to please everyone
with the proposed structure of the new contract; but the size of the
vote in support of it was testimony to how small a proportion of contractors
felt themselves to be disaffected.
Mr Williams was a major force in moving community pharmacy forward into
a new age; his contribution to the profession was enormous and certainly
merits the term “distinction”.
It is distinction which the Panel of Fellows needs to recognise before
it grants a fellowship.
I have no doubt that the panel saw distinction, even if Mrs Hopkins does
not; Mr Williams has demonstrated distinction in abundance, and above
and beyond the call of duty.
It is, of course, possible for members of the panel to recognise distinction
while not liking personally the activity which constituted it (though
I do not even remotely suggest that was the case in this instance), and
it is regrettable that Mrs Hopkins was unable to do the same.
Dick Hazlehurst
Secretary, Bradford Local Pharmaceutical Committee
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal