|
· 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
|
Section 60 Order
Premature to propose Rules
From Dr G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS
The draft Section 60 Order has been heavily criticised on several grounds
by most of the pharmaceutical bodies, except the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society. During the consultation, challenges and objections have been
raised, and reported in The Journal, to the draft Order in connection
with, for example, the definition of “practising”, fitness-to-practise
matters (including attitudes and behaviour issues), linkage between registration
and professional matters, and the draconian powers suggested for the
Society (most of the which appear to be in breach of the Human Rights
Act).
In spite of these reports, am I missing something or has the Society
more information than it reveals? The consultation on the draft S60 Order
closed on June 19 and five days later the Society
announced a consultation process (PJ, 24 June, p767), proposing new Rules to be made under the
Order — an Order that at present does not exist except in draft
form. Such speed to produce the Rules! There must be a reason for such
haste. Could it be that the Society believes, or knows, that the draft
Order will be implemented by the Government without any alterations to
the draft? If such a situation should arise, the three-month consultation
will have been a fiction.
If the draft Order is radically changed, which many pharmacists and pharmaceutical
bodies hope will happen, the so-called draft Rules may prove to be useless
and another consultation fruitless.As I write, we are awaiting the Foster
report and the report of the chief medical officer. We have still to
wait for a substantive S60 Order, unless one does not see the light of
day. Without one there is no power to make Rules.
Surely the Society is somewhat premature to propose rules under the power
of a Government Order that does not exist? Perhaps, as last year, it
asked pharmacists on reregistration to supply information as to criminal
convictions without the power so to do, it feels it can go ahead and
assume that a substantive S60 Order would grant such power concerning
Rules.
Gordon E. Appelbe
London |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal