| · The profession (2)
· Dispensing
· Medicine use reviews
· Strains and sprains
· CPPE
· Fellowship
Letters to the Editor
|
Fellowship
Should be granted as a matter of right after, say, 40 years
From Mr D. Kent, MRPharmS
I cannot let pass without comment the response by Dick
Hazlehurst (PJ,
22 July, p106) to the letter from Ewa
Hopkins (PJ, 15 July, p75).
Mrs Hopkins, I believe, was criticising primarily the manner in which
honours, in this case fellowship of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
are given to those perceived to be the great and the good with little
or no reference to the effect their activities may have had on members
of the Society. I agree with this view.
Whenever has fellowship been given to a pharmacist who has spent 40 years
or more practising his or her profession in a quiet, efficient and professional
manner yet not involving themselves in pharmaceutical politics or other “worthy” activities?
Who is the better pharmacist? The committee man whose significant business
interests allow him to take on roles that do not directly affect patients
or the small man (or woman) who goes about his profession and struggles
to make a modest living while providing for his patients?
Mrs Hopkins did not mention any particular person although Dick Hazlehurst
was quick to jump on the obvious rather than the general. It ill behoves
a Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee representative to come
to the defence of a person rather than the process — this is a
typical example of the PSNC closing ranks when one of its own is perceived
to be criticised. We all have our views on the attitudes, capabilities
and motives of individuals and are entitled to them.
But I do not recognise Mr Hazlehurst’s opinion. To honour a person
who has led, and in leading being in a position to significantly influence,
a committee which is causing so much grief to so many is perverse. Censure
would, in my opinion, have been more appropriate.
Mr Hazlehurst accuses Mrs Hopkins of a lack of pragmatism. The imminent
loss of the financial base of your business concentrates the mind acutely
on the pragmatic rather than the theoretical. The greater good of the
(stronger) majority is not a consideration in such a case.
I would go further than Mr Hopkins: to single out a single person as
being responsible for the shortcomings of the financial model of the
new community pharmacy contract is wrong. The PSNC as a whole should
be censured for its refusal to consider the financial and social consequences
of its blatant advantaging of the stronger at the expense of the weaker.
There is ample funding in the new contract to advantage the stronger
while not disadvantaging the weaker; the motives of the PSNC in taking
the course it has needs exploring and the chairman of the subcommittee
responsible for that decision must, of course, be open to criticism.
The decision of the Society to honour, at this time of such great controversy,
is perverse and can only be perceived as “jobs for the boys”.
It is the whole method of the granting of fellowships that needs addressing.
I would maintain that every pharmacist who has been on the Register without
blemish for a period of, say, 40 years should be granted fellowship as
a matter of right.
There is little to look forward to in this difficult profession. A fellowship
before retirement would be nice.
David Kent
Secretary
Camden and Islington Local Pharmaceutical Committee |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal