| • Adverse drug events
• Patient data
• Methadone
• The Society (5)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
A curious letter and a contradictory view
From Mr S. W. F. Holloway
Christine Glover has written a curious letter (PJ, 6 January 2007, p11).
She seems to believe that if the Royal Pharmaceutical Society relinquishes
its regulatory role its ability to influence nationwide policy will diminish.
Her view contradicts
that held by previous commentators. They were unanimous
in maintaining that the Society, with the burden of regulating removed,
would be free to direct its efforts to maintaining the honour and safeguarding
and promoting the interests of its members in the exercise of their profession
(PJ, 4 November 2006, pp547–9). This is the objective that both
the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing strive
to achieve for their own members. It has been argued that the absence
of an organisation comparable to the BMA and the RCN leaves pharmacists
in an unnecessarily weak position in the political
and administrative arena of the NHS.
Mrs Glover, to the contrary, believes that organisations like the BMA
and the RCN, which seek to defend their members’ rights rather
than focus on the public interest, cannot influence policy development
in the way the Society does. That is true; the BMA and the RCN are much
more effective professional bodies than the Society. Their strong leadership
influences governments and policy makers far and wide. The strength of
their leadership derives from the fact that they are not hampered by
the statutory duty to regulate the members they represent. Beverly Malone,
who has recently retired as general secretary of the RCN, has said (Society
Guardian, 20 December 2006, p5) of the RCN that “it is a membership
organisation. That’s its power, and the opportunity for a leader
is to exercise his or her ability to act with it.”
But for Mrs Glover, it is not leadership that will enable doctors and
nurses to “dominate every argument” and push pharmacy into
oblivion, but simply “their large numbers”.
She thinks that the Government is similarly unimpressed by professional
leadership: “… who leads and argues for the profession is of
no particular consequence to the politicians.” She neglects to
point out, however, that it might be of considerable consequence for
the profession.
Mrs Glover’s letter fosters the idea that representing a profession
is an exercise in public relations and that influencing policy makers
is a matter of spending vast sums of money to cut ice inside the lobbying
world. Her view of the Society is that, after the regulatory role is
removed, all that remains is an “emasculated rump”. What,
in fact, remains is the professional association that since 1841 has
supported and defended its members in their efforts to practise pharmacy
as a scientific and ethical vocation.
Sydney Holloway
Leicester
Section 60 — saving our Society
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
May I take this opportunity to disabuse Christine
Glover (PJ, 6 January,
p11) of her misperceptions about the modus operandi and intentions of
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council, lest she mislead others?
She describes “Mark Koziol and the Save Our Society group” as
an organisation, but the SOS was a loose affiliation of individuals:
there never has been a “membership” or any “organisational
structure”. We were concerned about the direction of travel the
Society had taken over a 10-year period leading up to the introduction
of the new Charter. Unchecked, that direction of travel would have left
the Society’s role as a representative body, championing pharmacists’ professional
interests’ destroyed. But more than that we were concerned for
democracy, and for members’ rights to determine the future of “their” Society.
Under the “old” Council, of which Mrs Glover was a member,
most of the debate was held in closed session and the mantra was “there
is no alternative” and “if you only knew what we know but
we cannot tell you”. Far from (as she puts it) “leading effectively
by engaging with the membership” that Council exploited a loophole
in the old Charter to attempt to push through its own agenda in the face
of overwhelming
membership opposition. That loophole was closed as a result of SOS action.
This means that any such change must now be ratified by the members in
a democratic vote.
If Mrs Glover believes that SOS members of Council seek a future trades
union type role for the Society then she is wrong. None of us has ever
argued for any such future role.
I could go on, but I do not need to. This time around and with this Council
the members are guaranteed the final say in any change, and the debate
is being held substantially in public. Members who wish to know exactly
what has been said need only look at the verbatim transcripts for themselves
(see PDF (320K)
and PDF (370K)).
My only hope is that, when it comes to election time, members take these
stark contrasts into account.
Graham Phillips
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Pharmacy Now — a waste of time, effort and money
From Mr R. Blyth, FRPharmS
The latest innovation — perhaps gimmick would be a more appropriate
word — from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is an e-publication
entitled Pharmacy Now (PDF 320K).
The first, seven-page issue provides no information of any value, apart
from perhaps a page on the Society’s library.
Typical, for example, is a reference to the Foster and Donaldson reports.
It tells us only that there were such reports and that the Society sent
a response to them in November 2006. The Pharmaceutical Journal, on the
other hand, devoted in its issue of 5 August 2006, two thirds of a page
by the Society’s Vice-President on how the Society would be responding
to the reports. Also, in the 22 July 2006 issue, there was a valuable
two-column letter from Council member Bob Michell on the two reports.
Finally, the PJ of 18 November 2006 covered the matter of the two reports,
very fully indeed, with a full-page leading article, a two-page news
feature and full-page outline by the President of the Society of the
Society’s response to the reports.
Most of the items in Pharmacy Now are short, except “The big interview”,
which may be relatively big in terms of length but is small in terms
of information. A typical short item informs us that we can pay our retention
fees online.
The title of the new publication would seem to suggest that it will be
dealing with current affairs in pharmacy, a task that The Pharmaceutical
Journal, which is
still described as the official
journal of the Society, has been discharging with notable success for
165 years.
It may be that the reason behind the launch of the new publication, apart
from a desire to join the dumbing-down fraternity, is that it will appeal
to those pharmacists who, for whatever reason, do not read the PJ.
There must, however, be something seriously wrong with the professional
orientation of such pharmacists. Indeed, any suggestion from any quarter
that would encourage pharmacists to believe that they may, with impunity,
neglect their duty of paying attention to the PJ is to be deplored.
The plain truth is that Pharmacy Now is a waste of time, effort and money.
Robert Blyth
Former editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire
| |
JEAN-PIERRE MOSER, head of corporate communications and membership,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
Pharmacy Now is an e-newsletter
targeted at members based in England and designed to complement
existing publications already produced by the Society for its members
in Scotland
and Wales.
In expressing his concerns about Pharmacy Now, Mr Blyth makes comparisons
with The Pharmaceutical Journal. However the two are entirely different
publications
with distinct purposes. As the Society explores ways in which it can improve
its communications with the membership it is important to recognise that it
in today’s world many people do not have the time to sit
down and read traditional printed publications. That is not to
say that there is not a place for such formats
but what is important is that people are offered a choice.
Pharmacy Now provides readers with an easy-to-digest overview of the broad
range of work that the Society undertakes on behalf of the pharmacy profession.
Importantly,
being an electronic publication, Pharmacy Now can link readers to more detailed
online information and resources in a fast and effective way. |
Suspension of due process?
From Mr M. J. Tobyn, MRPharmS
In response to a story in The Guardian for 28 December 2006 (p12) about
possible pharmacist fraud within an anti-smoking campaign, a Royal Pharmaceutical
Society spokesman is quoted as saying: “Any person found guilty
of misconduct by the Society’s disciplinary committee will be removed
from the Register and prevented from working as a pharmacist.”
If the spokesman has not been misquoted or The Guardian has not misprinted,
this suggests an admirable streamlining of the Statutory Committee’s
workings. By deciding the sentence beforehand, the Society will save
some locum fees, travelling expenses and lawyer’s fees, among other
expenses, and the valuable time of Statutory Committee members.
I look forward to additional notifications of suspension of due process
with the aim of saving money (or appearing tough) during the course of
the year.
Mike Tobyn
West Kirby,
Merseyside
| |
DAVID PRUCE, director of practice and quality improvement,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
I would like to reassure
Mr Tobyn that there has been
no “streamlining” of the Society’s disciplinary processes.
The quote from The Guardian makes it appear that removal from Register
is automatic and applies to all cases of misconduct, which is not true.
As pharmacists will be aware, if a pharmacist is found guilty of misconduct
by the Society’s Statutory Committee he or she could be removed
from the Register but this will be dependent on the individual case.
It would appear that the reporter misunderstood what our spokesperson
said. |
Appeal for new retention fee deadline
From Mr D. Jones, MRPharmS, and others
Having celebrated Christmas with only a solitary Brussels sprout (a
consequence of recently paying nearly £850 to the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society between us), we would like to renew the annual appeal for the
retention fee deadline to be moved away from the festive period. After
all, just about every other Byelaw has been amended in the past few years.
May we suggest that 1 April would be a suitable alternative date?
David Jones
Hereford
Matthew Jones
London
Sarah Jones
London |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal