The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7421 p417
7 October 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

PDA criticises Society's approach in draft fitness-to-practise rules

Criticism has been levelled at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society by the Pharmacists Defence Association for the overall tenor of proposed fitness-to-practice rules.

In a response (PDF 640K) that pays as much attention to the Society’s approach as it does to specific questions asked by the Society about the proposed rules, the PDA accuses the Society of adopting a punitive stance, rather than wanting to help pharmacists deliver best practice.

Taking new procedures to be operated by the General Dental Council as a comparator, the PDA says of the Society: “The RPSGB has been vociferous in attempting to preserve its ‘unique’ dual role of regulator and membership body. Paradoxically, it makes no attempt at putting learning and rehabilitation at the heart of its FtP rules. Its focus is [on] punishment and retribution.”

The PDA also complains that the consultation was premature and will have to be repeated. It believes this to be the case because the draft rules have been based on the draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order, which Department of Health officials have indicated will be amended. The PDA believes that this means the draft fitness-to-practise rules will have to be rewritten and a new consultation launched.

Responding to specific questions posed in the consultation, the PDA says that no one should be automatically removed from the register for non-payment of fees because there have been cases where members have tried to pay their fees but the Society’s banking systems have failed to collect them.

The association also criticises the Society’s proposed definition of “good character” because it includes a duty of care that precludes the activities of leading edge practitioners who might be developing treatments ahead of previously published guidelines.

Other criticisms include the use of imprecise words, such as “serious”, “less serious” and “recent”, that fail to define the standard against which conduct is to be judged.