| • The Journal (7)
• Clinical trials
• Renal pharmacy
• Modified release morphine
• Pharmacy practice
• Locum pharmacy
• Pharmacy leadership
• The profession (2)
• Ethics
• The Society
• Retention fees (3)
• Retirement fellowship
Letters to the Editor
|
The profession
Students do not graduate with master's level knowledge
From Mr K. D. Ball, MRPharmS
I would take serious issue with Damien
Day (PJ, 18 November 2006, p608)
in his assertion that students are graduating with master’s level
knowledge. In our interview tests for preregistration students it is
evident that they do not possess the necessary numerical or pharmacological
skills to operate at master’s level. They simply would not cope
on a consultant ward round nor would I expect them to do so. The fact
that other professions are awarding master’s level degrees is not
valid evidence that we are among good company. As my own daughter admits, “just
because I spent four years at university does not make me a master of
what I have studied”.
I have a deal of sympathy with Kathryn
Kipling (PJ, 25 November 2006,
p637), who shows more understanding of the issues surrounding four-year
courses. I have no doubt that extended degrees are needed to compensate
for the A-level and GCSE qualifications. If we are, however, to confer
master’s level degrees then the students qualifying must be able
to demonstrate their mastery and I have yet to be convinced of this.
Those of us who also possess master’s degrees have submitted theses
and been rigorously examined on these to demonstrate that we do have
a mastery of the particular field of study. Most of us feel happy with
this but would not claim mastery across a wide range of subjects. I hope
that what I see in the future are students who are truly masters of their
profession.
Ken Ball
Wigton, Cumbria
Formation of a UK-wide professional body has merit
From Mr S. Montgomery, MPSNI
Terry Maguire asserts that a merger between the Pharmaceutical Society
of Northern Ireland and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
would destroy local leadership in the profession in Northern Ireland and
not be in the best interests of pharmacy (PJ, 13 January, p48). Given that
health is a devolved matter throughout the nations of the UK, and that
the Society has national boards to deal with the devolved governments,
I fail to see how this is the case: what can the PSNI do that a Northern
Ireland board could not? It is likely that the same personalities would
be involved on both thus maintaining the existing networks of contacts
between profession and government.
That the PSNI exists is an accident of history. There was a PSGB and a
PSI before the Irish Free State was created. At partition the PSI covered
the newly independent territory, while the PSNI was created to cover Northern
Ireland, which remained in the UK but was not included in the PSGB.
I, and the vast majority of local pharmacists to whom I have spoken, see
great benefit in both a merger of the PSNI and the Society and the giving
back of regulation to the government. Currently pharmacists in Northern
Ireland are required to pay a greater retention fee than those on the mainland,
but get no professional services — no Pharmaceutical Journal, no
library, no expert advice, etc. Merging the societies would grant us in
Northern Ireland access to the services that the Society (because of its
size) is able to provide, while the Society would gain around an extra
1,800 members.
I note that letters in these pages often complain of medical exceptionalism.
How about we sort out pharmacy exceptionalism: why is our professional
body simultaneously our regulatory body, and why does Northern Ireland
have a separate body from the rest of the UK?
Let us move towards a positive future. Hive off regulation into a separate
body and merge the societies (and perhaps other pharmacy professional bodies)
into a UK-wide “Royal College of Pharmacy” that can lead and
inspire the profession as a whole, develop the post-registration education
framework and support specialisation, encourage and help members in their
continuing professional development and provide professional benefits and
services without being hamstrung by the need for it to be seen that regulation
is above reproach.
Roll on the day when we can be proud of and inspired by our professional
body once again.
Stephen Montgomery
Belfast |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal