How to be heard
About now, voting forms and booklets outlining the candidates' credentials for the Society's three national pharmacy board elections will drop through eligible pharmacists' and pharmacy technicians' letterboxes. Members of these boards will have a real opportunity to focus on professional matters and to lead and guide members in that arena.
There are 59 candidates in total for five separate elections. It is worth
reading their biographical
details (starting on p708) to appreciate what
they might have to offer, which in many cases is a great deal. Some of
the names are new as far as the national pharmacy stage is concerned — and
some are names that are widely respected within and without the profession
but have not previously been heard on the floor of pharmacy politics.
In Scotland and Wales the election will be straightforward, but in England
there are reserved places for one pharmacist in each of five sectors — community,
primary care/public health, hospital, industry and academia — as
well as six unreserved places.
The number of candidates for these sectoral places is instructive for
all members of the profession — in particular for those who practise
in hospital medicine, in the industrial sector and in academia. Academic
pharmacy, by far the smallest sector, produced no candidates for its
reserved place (and the board will have to decide whether or not to co-opt
someone in due course). The reserved hospital and industrial places attracted
only one candidate each and, as a result, both candidates have been elected
unopposed. The Journal has few doubts that both men will serve their
sectors well.
However, compare these outcomes with what is going on in primary care/public
health. Altogether seven candidates are standing for the one reserved
place and four of them are also standing for unreserved places. There
will be more than one pharmacist with a background in primary care or
public health on the English National Board if they win one or more of
the unreserved places. Yet there are thousands fewer pharmacists in this
sector than there are hospital pharmacists and roughly a similar number
to those in industry.
The Journal can only speculate why these groups have responded so differently
to the call to arms. Arguably, hospital and industrial pharmacists believe
that their voices are already well heard (through two special interest
groups — a route lacking for primary care pharmacists). Alternatively,
the primary care and public health pharmacists have realised what a great
opportunity is opened by the national pharmacy boards and have risen
to the challenge.
Whatever the reason, may the best men and women win. The Journal looks
forward to hearing the views of some new names in its pages.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal