Putting the house in order
When the battle between the modernisers and the traditionalists over the future of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society was at its height a few years ago, the then Council was berated for taking notice of what the Government wanted for the Society and for failing to stand up to the mandarins in Richmond House (the home of the Department of Health).
However, if the Society is to live in the real world, some account must
be taken of the Government’s expectations. Accordingly, the Council — at
its meeting last week — put in motion a process that may well ultimately
end not only in the separation of the functions of the Society (regulation
and professional leadership) but also in the existence of two
distinct structures to accommodate the two functions (p723).
The enthusiasm of those members of Council who wanted to make the decision
to split the Society there and then and put the decision to the membership
as soon as possible was reined in by the views of the more cautious faction.
In one of the most
intelligent and thoughtful Council debates of recent years (p750) it was decided that the options open to the Society should
be independently scrutinised and alternative models created that will
most likely satisfy the Government, the Council and the membership. A
decision will then be made on which model to adopt.
Those members of the Society who have advocated actual separation of
the Society and who would like to see two separate phoenixes arise from
the ashes need to think hard about the implications. Casting nasty regulation
aside and reverting to a professional leadership body run by a governing
group made up of elected pharmacists may reflect Jacob Bell’s original
ideals for the Society but, unless membership is compulsory and inclusive,
it could come at an unacceptable cost. Members of the Society are not
likely to want to support a venture that ends up substantially increasing
the total fees they currently pay.
Virtual separation, keeping regulation and professional leadership as
close together as possible — as advocated by other members of the
Society — may risk alienating external pharmacy bodies. These bodies’ input
to the professional leadership role of the Society could be invaluable
but they might think that the Society’s agenda merely reflected
the regulatory role and so their input might be lost.
This review is a chance not just for the Society but for the whole of
the profession to put its house in order — as pointed out by a
correspondent this
week (p734) — and for new alliances to be forged
for the betterment of the profession and patient care.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal