|
• Pharmacy practice
• Health economics
• Dispensing errors
• Controlled drugs
• Ethics
• Adverse events
• Regulation
• Fitness to practise
• The Society (2)
• Retention fees (5)
• Pharmacy politicians
• The Journal (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
In defence of the rump
From Mr D. M. Simpson, FRPharmS
Christine Glover (PJ, 6 January, p11), shows herself to be anxious that
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should remain as a powerful political
force arguing pharmacists’ corner in the world of competing professional
interests.
But despite the length of her communication she fails to recognise that,
in making the Society fit for regulation, as public policy now demands,
it could be disabled as a political force.
As things stand at the moment, only 56.7 per cent of the Society’s
governing body, the Council, is elected by the membership. That proportion
is likely to fall to less than half as a result of governmental decisions
following the Donaldson and Foster reviews of health professional regulation.
How could such a body, where pharmacists would be in the minority, be
an effective and credible political force arguing the profession’s
case?
Currently, a third of the Council, the governing body of the Society,
is appointed by the Privy Council or the NHS Appointments Commission,
a publicly funded institution working to a remit set by government. With
such a body appointing over half of the governing body, which is a distinct
possibility, the Society, currently a private institution, would have
effectively been taken over by the government. The Society could not
be said to represent pharmacy under such circumstances.
Mrs Glover ignores this central issue. She also gives a wrong impression
of the scope of work of the Society. If regulation were to be removed,
the rump that she disparages would include publishing, the library and
historical collection, benevolence, the branches and regions, the new
national boards, the British Pharmaceutical Conference, practice research,
public relations and careers promotion. This so-called rump would perform
all of the functions of a professional association, principally, professional
leadership and representation and provision of support services for members.
The
Society’s publications account for around 50 per cent of the
Society’s turnover, and around 30 per cent of its staff are engaged
on them. Most staff walking though the Society’s front doors in
England, Wales and Scotland are not involved in regulation but in the
work of a professional association. Perhaps, as an erstwhile PJ staff
member, I ought to declare an interest as a former “rump” worker.
Since Mrs Glover clearly believes that promoting the profession is of
paramount importance to pharmacy, it is all the more surprising that
she should have voted in favour of the first
draft Charter to be submitted
to the Privy Council (PJ, 13 December 2003, p826). That version
removed promoting the interests of members as a Charter object. It was
only after
the intervention of the Save Our Society campaign, of which I am a supporter,
that that object was restored. Douglas Simpson
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
We are at rock bottom; the only way is up
From Mr A. Phillips, MRPharmS
I have read Christine
Glover’s letter (PJ, 6 January, p11) and it
appears she has missed the point that most members of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society do not see it as doing a competent job of representing this profession.
In fact, in the past the Society has shied away from getting involved in
representative issues, citing a conflict of interest between representation
and regulation. It is for this reason that many of us are rubbing our hands
in glee at the thought of no longer being tied to these people in their
ivory towers.
I find that the comparison with the British Medical Association
is most apt: ask most people in the street what the BMA is and whom it
represents and then ask the same people what the Society is and whom
it represents and I think the results will speak for themselves.
As for the situation on representation becoming worse after any split,
as far as I am concerned it cannot happen; we are already at rock bottom
and the only way is up, just not with the Society as we know it. Alun Phillips
Liverpool |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal