| · TDM
· Work breaks
· Pfizer products
· Enhanced services
· Concordance (2)
· Small pharmacies
· Huntington's disease
· Section 60 Order
· The Society
· Technicians
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Fees should be a personal choice
From Mr D. G. Miller, MRPharmS
I read, with interest, the Broad
spectrum by two members of the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society’s Council (PJ, 25 November, p634) and the
letter by another
Council member (PJ, 25 November, p635), proposing the
separation of the regulatory function of the Society from its professional
and leadership function. While I can totally support this view from a
philosophical perspective, I am still to be fully convinced in practice
and would join the authors in welcoming a debate.
In particular, I am concerned that there is the danger that the control
of standards for students, preregistration trainees and pharmacists (along
with continuing professional development and revalidation) would have
to be under the control of the regulator. With the drive in the Foster
Report to reduce the number of regulators, any proposed General Pharmaceutical
Council could be merged into an existing regulator like the Health Professions
Council. If this were to happen there is a major danger that pharmacy
would no longer be in control of its own direction.
I do accept, however, that there is ample evidence that the current system
is not working, despite the current Council being configured with a majority
of pharmacists. There are, indeed, recent examples from a regulatory
perspective: as a pharmacist, I am unsure what extra services I obtain
from the Society for the £283 I am required to pay compared with
the fee of £93 for a pharmacy technician. Perhaps there is an assumption
of a major salary differential, but this is certainly not the case for
a newly qualified hospital pharmacist. In addition, the extra £35
to maintain the “SP” on the Register for supplementary prescribers,
unique to the Society, is nothing but a kick in the teeth for those who
have endeavoured to take the profession forward by additional study and
practice. Perhaps the current structure of the Council assumes all members
have their fees paid by their employer?
There is a vacuum in the professional leadership of pharmacy evidenced
by the plethora of new and existing representative bodies that promote
and support certain factions of the profession. That is, in my view,
an indictment of the current overemphasis on regulation with a professional
and regulatory body that due to the dead hand of regulation emphasises
what cannot, rather than what can, be done by pharmacists and technicians.
I totally agree that there is a need, if the profession is to thrive
and prosper into the 21st century, for it to be allowed the freedom to
think, push forward the boundaries of practice and modernise ways of
working. It will be the role of the three national boards to undertake
this role. In England, developments such as the new community pharmacy
contract, the White Paper “Our health, our care, our say” and
the creation of foundation hospitals present external opportunities and
threats to the profession. As a profession we have an opportunity to
look outwards and to move forward and address these national issues and
to demonstrate our value to the public. These boards can become, supported
by the individual members delivering pharmaceutical care, the public
face of pharmacy demonstrating the value of the profession to the public
we serve, to the press who inform that public and to the national politicians
they elect to legislate and govern on their behalf.
I may be more convinced if the proposed professional body was brave enough
to allow voluntary membership so that fees were a personal choice, providing
a true market and financial accountability.
David Miller
English National Board Candidate (elected unopposed)
Sunderland
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal