What “royal college” means
As the Government forges ahead with its plans to establish a General Pharmaceutical Council and take regulation away from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society — a responsibility it was first given just over 70 years ago — what the outcome may be for the Society afterwards is beginning to be aired.
The Carter Working Party that has been established by the Department
of Health to look at the costs and options of establishing the GPC will
need to report by the end of March — a mere four weeks from now — if
legislation has a chance of getting on the parliamentary agenda for 2007/08.
It is hard to believe that this momentous restructuring will be based
on solid evidence if the working party sticks to the timetable.
Be that as it may, with regulation gone, proper attention must be paid
to what happens to the rest of the Society. This week we examine some
of the opinions expressed by different pharmacy bodies in response to
the idea that
it should metamorphose into a professional organisation along the lines of a medical royal college (p241). Although the name, “ The
Royal College of Pharmacy”, has been used and adopted by us for
this week’s cover illustration, it is a working title and nothing
is yet finalised.
To move forward, the profession must think hard about whether it wants
to start with a blank sheet of paper — as suggested
by Carwen Wynne Howells, chief pharmaceutical adviser for Wales (PJ, 24 February, p207) — or
whether maintaining the established name of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain and refocusing its activities is more desirable.
However, as the implications sink in, what is clear from this
week’s
correspondence (pp244–7) is that opinion about the best way forward
is divided. Some pharmacists still hanker after the idea that the Society
should be a representative body looking after the interests of individuals
as well as the profession. (Keith Ridge, chief pharmaceutical officer
for England, has said categorically that a trade union is not what the
Government intends and, if the profession wants Government support to
sustain the Society in the future, that hope must die.)
Other correspondents emphasise that membership of the Society should
be voluntary. But since barely 20 per cent of the membership bothers
to vote in the Society’s Council elections, The Journal wonders
how many pharmacists would choose to be members — probably not
enough to keep a professional leadership body afloat and provide the
support and services that so many pharmacists want. So sustainability
is the key. The Society will need to attract clinical movers and shakers
into its governing structures to turn it into a professional body that
delivers an organisation that Society Vice-President Gerald Alexander,
past president Nicholas Wood, and the chief pharmaceutical officers hope
for. To do that, membership will probably have to be made compulsory.
And how will compulsory membership be justified? Some leading clinical
pharmacists are concerned that the medical royal colleges have their
influence because they are specialised and selective. The solution may
rest in future Government plans for revalidation or recertification,
with different tiers of membership and support offered for pharmacists
with more qualifications. As our News
feature makes clear, there is not
one royal college model but many. For the Society to find the right one
for the profession will be a huge challenge.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal