| · The Society (3)
· The profession (3)
· Methadone dispensing
· CD prescribing (2)
· Dispensing
· Dress codes
· Pharmacy services
· Work breaks
· Pharmacy in Spain
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Separation of functions
From Dr B. P. Curwain, MRPharmS
I would like to clarify my views on the future role or roles of the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
At the December meeting of the Society’s Council a lively discussion
was held on the impact of the Foster and Donaldson reviews of the regulation
of health professionals and its implications for the Society [see p750].
The Council agreed speedily to commission an independent review, by someone
outside the profession of suitable stature and experience, of the options
for the future. It determined that a progress report on the review would
be available at the next Council meeting.
It is, in my view, not yet completely certain that we will be required
to set up two entirely separate organisations, although this may turn
out to be the appropriate option. The review, which must be independent,
is designed both to establish this and also to look critically at the
various risks that the Society faces as a result of the change in regulatory
climate. The Society has significant assets, which need to be safeguarded.
It has a (currently) profitable publications arm and a valuable museum
collection. Crucially, the Society, as a significant employer of a highly
skilled and valuable workforce, must act in accordance with good human
resources practice and legislation. If the Society were to separate completely
from regulation and become a purely representative and leadership body
for the profession, then it must have detailed plans that will ensure
it an adequate income stream. The place of the three national boards,
shortly to be formed, must also be clarified within any new framework
that is proposed. Following the review we have instigated, the Council
will make proposals and then consult the members and registrants of the
Society. The review needs to be as speedy as is consistent with thoroughness.
What we clearly must do, within a reasonable time, is to provide an acceptable
separation both of the functions of regulation and representation, and
of the accountabilities that surround them. It is worth pointing out
that, unlike the General Medical Council, the Society has not been subject
to significant criticism concerning its regulatory activities. Regulation
needs to be governed by a lay majority; representation and professional
development need to be in the hands of pharmacists and technicians, with
lay input on any governing Council. Appointment rather than election
is thought by many to be appropriate for governors of a regulatory body,
whereas it is the view of many Council members, myself included, that
pharmacists and technicians would want to have the chance to elect the
leaders and governors of their professional representative body.
In a nutshell, I do not think we are yet in a position to determine in
the fine detail necessary the best way to separate representation and
regulation. That is what the review is designed to achieve.
Brian Curwain
English National Board Election Candidate
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
A revitalised Society must show itself to be necessary
From Mr R. Gartside, FRPharmS
It has been obvious for a few years that government (in its widest sense)
has been determined to take control of the self-governing professions — and
not just the health professions; lawyers and others are having similar
troubles. So John Gentle and Graham Phillips (PJ, 25 November, p623)
are quite right to suggest that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should
at least have a “plan B” to preserve the representative part
of the Society’s functions, since these would otherwise be lost
to members if, as is suggested, the whole of the Council were to be appointed
by government.
Representation covers much more than simply handing out drinks and canapés
at receptions and other similar functions. The Society’s Welsh
Executive, for example, made a point of attending each of the political
parties’ conferences in Wales as well as a large number of official
NHS gatherings. Much has been achieved but even this is not the most
important part of representation.
We live in times when a rising tide of legislation threatens to drown
us all — and for each piece of legislation there is a formal consultation
in which all affected people are invited to participate. If people do
not respond their concerns and problems cannot be dealt with because
government will not know of them. Yet there seems, at times, to be an
important piece of proposed legislation affecting pharmacy at least once
every month and the list is never ending.
On all these topics it is important that an independent and authoritative
voice for pharmacy is heard. We can take it that the views of major commercial
concerns will be efficiently and professionally presented and it is vital
that the profession’s views are put over in the same way. A poodle
regulator with members appointed by government will most certainly not
be able to make such representations and responses to proposed legislation.
By all means let us try our hardest to preserve the dual role of our
Society — but we must be prepared to separate representation if
we effectively lose regulation. The problem, of course, is that pharmacists
may no longer wish to remain members. The answer to this problem is that
a revitalised Society must show itself to be necessary for members’ welfare,
and effective at promoting the profession and value for money.
Bob Gartside
Welsh National Board Election Candidate
Caernarfon, Gwynedd
Veterans are not treated with contempt
From Mr A. F. Huntley, MRPharmS
R. Paul Peskett (PJ, 25 November, p637) believes that the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society and its Council treats veteran members with contempt.
Equating this with disrespect for the membership of all ages I would say
that this alleged contempt, especially concerning the veterans, hardly
stands up to scrutiny in so far as, for the princely sum of £1.23
per week, we receive 51 issues of The Pharmaceutical Journal per annum
for a unique up-to-date report, comments, information, obituaries and the
musings of the polymath, the one and only “Onlooker”.
The PJ has given veterans the privilege of stating at length in its columns,
their reasons for not renewing their membership, but it is their own decision
whether to remain on the Register or to leave.
A. F. Huntley
Bristol |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal