| · 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
|
The Society
Society must get involved over Pfizer UniChem deal
From Mr I. D. Kemp, MRPharmS
When did the Royal Pharmaceutical Society adopt its new motto, “Don’t
just do something, stand there” (Council
to maintain a watching brief on Pfizer’s distribution deal [PJ, 21 October, p492])? Stephen Wells
made serious allegations concerning the availability of Pfizer products
which the President brushed aside saying “he understood that the
company was taking steps to ensure that no patient was adversely affected”.
It would be helpful if he shared this understanding with the membership
because he seems to be the only pharmacist that Pfizer has informed?
The allegation was not that UniChem would not be able to cope with demand
of the new deal, but that other wholesalers were already having availability
problems that could affect patient care. Mr Wells implied that UniChem
was not having any problems, which may suggest that Pfizer is already favouring
UniChem. If this is the case then the Society should be contacting the
Office of Fair Trading because Pfizer is not allowed to do this until its
new contract with UniChem comes into force.
I am also concerned by the response from David Pruce, the Society’s
director of practice and quality improvement. Has nobody but me recognised
the similarity with the oxygen debacle? We had the same smug assurances
that everything will be all right and that capacity is not an issue (and
I concede it may not be if prescribers cease to use Pfizer products due
to the encouragement of the various pharmacists who have written on this
topic). Perhaps the Society should write some guidance to ensure Pfizer
products are switched appropriately so that the profession is not brought
into disrepute by large scale switching that is not evidence based.
In short, not only can the Society get involved, it must do; indeed it
might be contravening its Charter if it does not do so. It is the ideal
opportunity to show that a body which is both representative and regulatory
can work, since matters such as this would indeed fall between those two
stools if the Society were to split.
Ian Kemp
Halifax |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal