The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7426 p574
11 November 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· Pharmacy in Spain
· Controlled drugs
· Community pharmacy
· Prescribing
· Medicines use reviews
· Safety (2)
· Supermarket pharmacy
· The profession (4)
· The Council
· Statutory Committee
· Retention fee
· Section 60 Order
· The Society
· Pfizer products

Letters to the Editor

Section 60 Order

Let the Government create a regulatory body

From Dr G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS

I am sure that the response by David Pruce, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s director of practice and quality improvement, to my letter (PJ, 28 October, p514) will have enlightened the membership even if to me, on the question of the Statutory Committee, it was like grandmother being taught how to suck eggs.

The main thrust of my letter was that the Society’s Council, following the draft Section 60 Order, is rapidly driving the Society further and further down the regulatory role as envisaged by the Foster review. Little or no thought appears to have been given to the welfare of the membership, a principle dear to the hearts of the founders of the Society and many current members. How Mr Pruce can challenge that I find difficult to imagine but you have to read the draft rules to comprehend the argument. It is true that “the devil is in the detail”, and most of the questions circulated with the draft rules do not deal with such details. These draft rules are fundamental and warrant reading. For example, it should be noted that:

· Considerable extra powers are given to the Registrar, particularly in connection with the payment of fees

· There are ill-conceived and unenforcable conditions attached to the right to resign voluntarily from the Register

· Discretion on when to restore a person to the Register has been removed from the Statutory Committee

Let us be honest. There is nothing in the draft rules to enhance the welfare of the pharmacist. I am convinced that the Council will not be able to cope with both the regulatory and professional roles and this should be recognised. Problems have arisen in the past and others will continue to arise. The question of conflict of interest raises its ugly head. There are major professional problems and activities that face us in the future and there is no guarantee that government will agree with us or vice versa.

Pharmacy is in the throes of the greatest change since the advent of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933. Does the profession wish to see the Society continue to struggle to cope with the dual role, indeed with an enhanced regulatory role, or for the two roles to separate? Is it not time for a debate on the subject before it is too late and the Section 60 Order and the Society’s rules become a reality? Many pharmacists would say: “Give us back our professional body — the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain — together with our assets, and leave the Government to create the regulatory body.”

Gordon Appelbe
London

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Retention fee)
Next Topic (The Society)