What should a new body do?
Differences of opinion are beginning to emerge among pharmacists about how the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should evolve, as our report of a meeting organised by the Society to discuss
the implications of the Government establishing a General Pharmaceutical Council reveals (p297).
Concerns were raised about whether the Society — in royal college
mode — should be inclusive or exclusive. Clearly pharmacists at
the meeting had different views about what “inclusive” might
mean. Some thought the organisation should embrace the spectrum within
pharmacy and include pharmacy technicians and pharmaceutical scientists;
others thought it should just be open to pharmacists, while yet others
suggested membership should be restricted to specialists.
Some of these interpretations may stem from the idea that the Society
could be like a medical royal college — but that concept may be
muddying the water. Most of these are highly specialised and examinations
must be passed, not only for full membership to be obtained but also
to be able to apply for senior posts in the NHS. These organisations
are largely focused on education and, to that end, are charitable institutions.
Most pharmacists are, in contrast, generalists: there are relatively
few specialist pharmacists in practice and even fewer in posts that require
a higher qualification. Those few pharmacists might like to see the Society
become like the medical royal colleges but it would be unrealistic for
most pharmacists to want to join such a body or even aspire to its membership.
Indeed, there may be lessons to be learnt from the Royal College of General
Practitioners, which struggled in its early years to attract members.
There is some consensus that the body should be sustainable, in which
case it needs to be attractive enough for people to want to join if membership
is not compulsory. Basic membership might, for example, allow members
to attend branch meetings (in future focused on supporting continuing
professional development and, in due course, revalidation), to receive
The Pharmaceutical Journal and to have access to the library. Pharmacists
with a special interest might be able to join a designated group where
they would be offered additional services. There might be room for faculties
as well, where membership could be conferred through examination or assessment
and there could be further benefits for these members. The profession
would probably want to find room for students and retired pharmacists
as well. Pharmacists might find that pharmacy technicians and pharmaceutical
scientists fitted naturally into the fold and, moreover, the profession’s
voice might be stronger and louder for having all on board.
So what kind of body might emerge? Instead of worrying who should be
in or who should be out, the Council and the profession should ask what
they want a professional leadership body to do. Only once the core functions
are agreed should the structure be considered. There are many different
permutations to be considered but if the profession starts the process
of determining its future by excluding groups from the beginning it could
find itself failing to grasp all the opportunities.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal