| • Patient safety
• MURs
• Section 60 Order (3)
• The Society
• Wholesaling
Letters to the Editor
|
Section 60 Order
Pharmacy may be sidelined into oblivion
From Mrs C. Glover, FRPharmS
The issue of communications and publicity for pharmacy as a profession
is one which has always been a thorny question. How many times have pharmacists
heard interviews about issues concerning drugs and dispensing and various
pharmacy bodies — sometimes the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the
National Pharmacy Association, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee and the Company Chemists’ Association — have been
quoted as being the mouthpiece for the profession.
As a profession our efforts to bring about changes within the NHS has
always been hampered by our own internal divisions sending varying messages
to ministers and the government — the Society says one thing, the
PSNC has a different view, the Company Chemists are to invited to comment,
etc, etc.
Effective leadership for the whole profession has only come when the
Society has been really well led and has managed to engage with all the
membership and other bodies to push policy development forward.
The Society’s Council has decided to commission an independent
review on how separating the functions of the Society could be achieved
and a series of articles have appeared in The Journal all espousing the
benefits of such action, but none of articles has mentioned the catastrophic
effect that splitting the Society would have on our ability to influence
nationwide policy.
When the regulation is removed what is left? A royal college, driving
innovation, setting standards, and leading by example, or a trade union
type of body like the British Medical Association or the Royal College
of Nurses negotiating and defending members’ rights?
Members will have to pay the regulator in order to practise; they can
then choose whether to join the emasculated rump that is left.
There is also the possibility of the remaining portion being split between
the three countries; this further dilutes our voice and influence.
Hospital pharmacists are much more likely to support the Guild, which
can grow and blossom with increased interest and monies, and one can
use similar arguments with other sections of the profession. The NPA
now includes Boots among its membership, which significantly changes
its position at any table.
So just who is going to want to pay a fat fee to the residual part of
the split Society? It is going to need to be a big fee if this body is
to achieve anything. It will certainly need to be housed and staffed
and a vast sum of money would be needed if it is to cut any ice inside
the lobbying world in the face of all the other parties. It will no longer
be able to say that it represents “all” pharmacy, which has
been true of the Society. All those pharmacists who moan about not being
consulted and never hearing the profession’s view on radio or TV
will have to get used to an even lower profile if this split goes ahead.
If members believe pharmacy has not had a clear voice that was heard
by the public and the people who make policy in the past, it will be
as nothing when compared to the situation if the Society were to split.
One has to consider what agenda it is that Mark Koziol and the Save Our
Society group are pursuing — this is the organisation that took
the Society and 16 members of the Society’s Council to the High
Court. Members will recall that they lost the case. What would they have
to gain from such a move? Would a trade union style body be keen to offer
insurance to members, as the RCN does? When organisations are not focused
on the public interest but are self-serving, as trade unions are, they
cannot influence policy development in the same way. It certainly will
not be an effective professional body with strong leadership influencing
governments and policy makers far and wide.
Let us take an example. There are just under 40,000 physiotherapists.
This number is similar to the number of pharmacists on the Register.
They are regulated by the Health Professions Council along with 12 other
professions and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy is their professional
body. How much influence do physiotherapists have? How often do we hear
about their role in maintaining health? This example shows that while
there are adequate alternatives, the price paid is to be left with no
power to influence at all.
The Shipman case brought the General Medical Council under even closer
scrutiny, and with it, all the other health regulators. Clearly the public
must be protected. The Society is unique in being both regulator and
a professional body. It has a good record as a regulator. The Government
is only interested in ensuring public safety — who leads and argues
for the profession is of no particular consequence to the politicians.
If the profession is split with each sector pushing its own view, we
shall be walked all over. Doctors and nurses with their large numbers
will dominate every argument and pharmacy will be further sidelined,
possibly into oblivion.
Christine Glover
Past President
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Society's Council should petition parliament
From Mr C. Morris, MRPharmS
I see that more pharmaceutical companies may be going to adopt the one-wholesaler
supply model. This is something that only the most shortsighted could
not have seen coming.
If nothing is done we will soon be faced with having to place orders
to several different wholesalers twice daily just to keep up the normal
service we provide now. This system could soon become unmanageable, time
consuming and unprofessional.
Several people have stood up and said we should all write to our MPs
to try to combat this but I ask where is the official rebuke to this
attempted degradation of the system.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council has asked our opinions
on, deliberated over and continually rehashed the news to us as to whether
Foster will cause us to have to split the regulatory and representational
sides of the Society.
We see the regulatory side week in and week out in The Journal — where
is the representation?
I know that I am not the first to ask this but we now have a situation
developing that could seriously threaten the pharmacy supply system as
we know it. Surely this is a time for an official petitioning of parliament
by our august Council.
The split has not been made yet. Perhaps the dying act of the Society,
as we know it, could be for the good of pharmacists and the profession
in general, or am I just living in some Utopian dreamland whereby the
representational duties of the Society are actually met by the Society?
Chris Morris
English National Board Election Candidate
Newquay, Cornwall
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal