The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7414 p222
19 August 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· Emergency supply (3)
· MURs
· Dispensing (2)
· The profession (2)
· Homoeopathy
· Herbal medicine
· Birdsgrove House
· Fellowship
· The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Fellowship

Too few submissions are received

From Mr J. P. Bannerman, FRPharmS

David Kent’s letter (PJ, 29 July, p133) has an interesting heading which belies the substance of it. It is in essence, a letter complaining about an award of fellowship to a man who has undoubtedly been heavily involved in Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee affairs. The substance of the complaint is entirely about a decision taken by the PSNC. I could, of course, comment on the fact that that organisation’s responsibility does not encompass the whole of the UK, but I am certain that Mr Kent is well aware of this and, since he is a secretary of a local pharmaceutical committee, he will also be aware of the mechanisms for dealing with complaints about the PSNC. It is unworthy of him to bring it into the arena of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s fellowship. I can only imagine that Mr Kent’s knowledge of the Society’s system for awarding a fellowship is not comprehensive.

A submission to designate a member as a fellow is sent to the Society by an existing fellow and may be supported by members or fellows. It is then placed before the panel of fellows. It is the view of the panel that far too few submissions are being received. The Society and, more particularly, the panel operates under Byelaws Section III(4): “Council may appoint a panel of fellows not being members of Council who shall have power to designate as a fellow a member of not less than 12 years’ standing who in their opinion has made outstanding original contributions to the advancement of pharmaceutical knowledge, or attained distinction in the science, practice, profession or history of pharmacy.”

The overwhelming number of submissions received are in respect of distinction in one or more of the four categories. The panel has to be satisfied that “distinction” has been demonstrated and without that, designation will not be made. Therefore, moving on to Mr Kent’s final point, it would be impossible for the panel under present byelaws to give a fellowship as of right solely for having “been on the Register without blemish, for a period of, say, 40 years”.

There may well be virtue in the Society considering some completely new award for that category of member, but it cannot be the present fellowship. It could be that the branch representatives’ meeting might be a suitable arena for any member to explore whether pharmacists in general are in favour of an award for a lifetime of service but such an award is not at present available [see PJ, 12 August, p201].

Jim Bannerman
Chairman, Panel of Fellows
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Birdsgrove House)
Next Topic (The Journal)