| • 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 Society
Benefits of membership must be positively demonstrated
From Mr W. B. Rhodes
There has been much discussion of late on the desirability or even inevitability
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society hiving off its statutory role, leaving
it as a purely professional body more able to advise, represent and provide
services to its members. At first thought there would seem to be some merit
in this suggestion as it would mean that members
would be more in control of their destiny, being governed by their peers.
A recent incident illustrates some of the problems caused by the currently
structured Council. The Cheltenham and Gloucester branch proposed that
a subject dealing with Council fees should be debated at the annual general
meeting but this was rejected because there were those on the Council who
would be affected but could not attend let alone participate in any debate
as some were technicians. If a subject concerning the spending of member’s
money cannot be discussed at their own AGM
then where on earth can it be discussed?
However, as in most debates there are two sides. If the Government in its
infinite wisdom were to propose that the Society should be split what would
this new Society be and would everyone want to belong to it and if not
why not? The current strength of the Society relies largely on compulsory
membership. If membership became optional, has the Society done enough
to ensure continuation?
Let me use community pharmacists as an example. A practising member, or
his or her employer, would have to pay a registration fee to a newly established “General
Pharmaceutical Council” for personal and premises registration, another
to the National Pharmacy Association, a further one indirectly to the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee — all of which are either obligatory
or highly desirable — and then, and only then, would he or she consider
the optional Society. Of course everyone should join.
The Society has been a tower of strength, a force to be reckoned with and
an organisation that governments had to consult — but how much of
this was due to its statutory role?
We hear talk of consultation with the membership on the question of splitting — but
I doubt there is time. The Council must consider, indeed I hope is considering,
what life would be like without the statutory role. If it is to attract
a broad membership in the future it must ingratiate itself to the current
members by more positively demonstrating the undoubted benefits that membership
has brought in the past.
An additional option is to consider offering a roof to other pharmaceutical
organisations whose membership benefits may be more apparent.
Bruce Rhodes
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal