| · Emergency supply (3)
· MURs
· Dispensing (2)
· The profession (2)
· Homoeopathy
· Herbal medicine
· Birdsgrove House
· Fellowship
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
The Journal
Disappointed by editor’s comments
From Mr K. D. Ball, MRPharmS
I was disappointed with the editorial
comments in the PJ of 5 August
(p150). The editor should note that there was no glory attached to a
single letter in a major daily since there was no response from the official
organ of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Some of us did respond directly
to newspapers and to the “Today” programme. Our comments
are in vain, however, unless backed up by the official body. Comments
relating to horses, water and drinking are fatuous.
Contrary to the editor’s views we have not missed a trick. Hospital
pharmacists take every opportunity they can, but backing by the official
body adds weight to our arguments. I do, of course, realise that issues
relating to prescription charges and community pharmacy take precedence
over the real role of pharmacists and in our household we ponder the
value of paying £530 a year for little benefit to hospital pharmacy.
We know that the Society is geared towards community pharmacy and the
argument is that if we want sufficient representation then we should
contest positions. Perhaps we find better things to do with our time
than join the ranks of those who attend one gong-giving ceremony after
another.
The editor’s comments relating to adding dimensions to a debate
are relevant but to follow this with comments relating to acknowledged
experts and reputations beyond their discipline are somewhat spiteful.
As well as being a clinical pharmacist I am also an expert on matters
pertaining to trust and contribute articles on this subject and its relationship
to pharmacy in other circles. I take every opportunity to promote the
profession in the best possible light but I also expect to be backed
up by my official body.
The final paragraph of your editorial comment was, perhaps, more than
I could take. We have already done a great deal in hospital pharmacy
but communicating to the PJ is far from preaching to the converted, despite
your assertions. Had the articles submitted by this pharmacy department
in the past 12 months (Kathryn Carter, Christopher Brewer, Siobhan Brewer,
Julie Trodden and Sandra Purdy, Hospital Pharmacist July/August
2005, p281–282 PDF (110K), Chris Brewer, Broad spectrum, 11 March, p290 and
5 August,
p158) been neither
innovative nor thought-provoking, then I would not have expected them
to be published in a reputable journal, much less
commented on or our practice used as a benchmark (Beverley Faulkner,
Samantha Bateman, Michael Marvin, Ian Harrison, Hospital Pharmacist,
February 2006, p58–60 PDF (120K)).
Perhaps writing these articles was our mistake, but it is one that we
will seriously consider in the
future,
lest we are again criticised for extolling our virtues and telling other
pharmacists about the wonderful work we do. Your comments sounded like
a pathetic excuse for inaction. As my
wife commented in the PJ (5 August,
p159), this is what we have come to expect.
I will continue to bang the drum of pharmacy for all sectors in academic,
medical and social situations but, following your editorial, I will no
longer expect support from my official body.
The whole tone of your editorial sounded like somebody who had been stung
by the truth and in my research work on trust I am well aware of the
consequences of such communications.
Ken Ball
Clinical Pharmacist
West Cumberland Hospital |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal