| · Pfizer products (4)
· Superdrug
· Electronic prescribing
· Instalment prescriptions
· The profession
· Fractures
· Section 60 Order
· Local councils
Letters to the Editor
|
Section 60 Order
Society should divest itself of its regulatory role
From Dr G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS
Since my recent
letter to The Pharmaceutical Journal (22 July, p106)
I have had the opportunity to examine in detail the draft rules that
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society proposes to issue under the substantive
Section 60 Order made under the Health Act 1999 which has not yet been
implemented following its consultation period. The Order will no doubt
be altered and I understand that a number of changes have already had
to be made to it following the consultation. This will be inevitable
as a result of the consultation and the publication of the Foster review
on the regulation of the non-medical health care professions. The Society
is rushing headlong into these changes without giving itself, and the
membership, sufficient time to consider the potential outcomes. Surely
it would be sensible to give more time for all concerned to understand
the major changes that are about to take place. There is also concern
that the Society has been implementing some of these rules as if it had
the power so to do, which, as yet, it has not.
The Society issued seven draft rules on registration, registration appeals,
voluntary removal from the Register, fraud/error, fitness to practise,
legal and special advisers, and membership of committees. However without
ploughing through the 141 pages plus 40 pages of notes and 33 questions,
one is not fully aware of what the changes will bring. Even with the
questions posed it is unrealistic for the Society to believe that the
average pharmacist can fully comprehend these changes. Many pharmacists
to whom I have spoken do not appreciate the complexity and the potential
outcome.
I have examined these rules and have commented on them in detail to the
Society. The rules, which may suit a regulator but not a professional
body, are, in my view, draconian, denying rights, including some human
rights, punishing wrongdoing and obstructing any form of rehabilitation
and restoration. Most pharmacists could now fall foul of these rules.
These rules, enforcing a punishment form of regulatory control, are quite
unsuitable for the role of a professional body whose activity is to guide
and help.
The Society must be reminded that it started as a professional membership
body and still is the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
Until now it had a excellent record in balancing the two roles; this
will cease if the draft Order and these rules become a reality. The sooner
the Society divests itself of its regulatory role and removes the inevitable
conflict of interest and returns, with its assets, to being a professional
body for pharmacy, the better for the profession.
Gordon Appelbe
London
| |
DAVID PRUCE, director of practice and quality improvement and chairman
of the rules group, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:
The Society
is grateful to the number of people who took the time to give us detailed
comments on the Rules during the consultation that we held. We received
a total of 54 responses of which 48 used the Society’s questionnaire
and six gave general comments. The 12-week consultation on the Rules
was on a complex subject and was necessarily long. The responses were
well
thought out and most made helpful suggestions that will be taken on
board and incorporated into our thinking. Indeed, the Council has already
taken
a number of decisions based on the responses received.
I cannot accept Dr Appelbe’s suggestion that we are rushing headlong
into these changes. The Section 60 Order is already many months late
and we have found
the constant delays frustrating.
I can also reassure Dr Appelbe that it is normal practice to develop the
Rules in parallel with the Section 60 Order. The Section 60 order gives the
Society
a number of new powers such as allowing the new statutory committees to impose
conditions on an individual’s practice rather than striking them off the
Register. This could include seeking treatment or undergoing a period of retraining.
This will allow pharmacists to continue practising under supervision and allow
rehabilitation. Currently, we can only deal with health cases by referring to
the Statutory Committee. This is clearly inappropriate and the new Health Committee
will be able to encourage rehabilitation at the same time as protecting the public.
The powers give the new statutory committees options that the current Statutory
Committee does not have. Finally, I cannot allow Dr Appelbe’s assertion
that “most pharmacists could now fall foul of these rules” to stand
unchallenged. The vast majority of pharmacists are honest, hard-working professionals
who would never dream of breaking the Code of Ethics or of committing a crime.
Of those who do “fall foul of the rules”, we would wish to see
them rehabilitated rather than punished. However, there must always be the
ultimate
sanction of striking off where rehabilitation is either inappropriate or has
failed. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal