| • White Paper (4)
• Funding for services
• Prescription charges
• Community pharmacy (2)
• Pharmacist prescribing
• Chlamydia testing
• Pfizer products
• Medicines recycling
• Skill mix
• Retention fees
• Retail pharmacy
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
Specialties must be recognised in a new royal college
From Mr R. J. Bateman, MRPharmS, and others
The proposal — in the recently published White Paper on the regulation
of health professionals — to separate the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s regulatory and professional leadership functions heralds
a historic change for the profession.
We are writing on behalf of the groups representing pharmacists working
within technical specialist areas in the NHS (quality assurance, production,
radiopharmacy, technical education and training, and aseptic services)
to highlight the significant opportunities we believe this change presents
for the future development of the science and practice of pharmacy.
As many people have recently commented, the pharmacy profession has a
diversity of specialist interest groups, whose members have a great wealth
of professional knowledge and expertise in specific areas of pharmacy
practice. The proposed formation of a “royal college” body
to provide clinical and professional leadership offers a real opportunity
to bring together the wide range of expertise within the profession under
the umbrella of one inclusive organisation.
It is important that all specialties are recognised and represented within
the new royal college structure. We would like to express our interest
in having the opportunity to work with other appropriate parties to ensure
that the new professional leadership body is inclusive and representative
of all areas of pharmacy practice and is capable of delivering clear
professional and clinical leadership while promoting the development
of leading edge practice.
Richard Bateman
Chairman, NHS Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Committee
John Harwood
Chairman, NHS Pharmaceutical Production Committee
Paul Maltby
Chairman, UK Radiopharmacy Group
Lynn Morrisson
Chairman, Technical Specialist Education and Training Committee
Peter Rhodes
Chairman, Pharmaceutical Aseptic Services Group
Paying for the future
From Mr E. S. S. Yuen, MRPharmS
John Fowler is right in noticing that civil servants are adept at “creating
black holes”, as he calls them (PJ, 10 March, p282). I am struck
by Mr Fowler’s selective awareness: he notices the black holes
created by civil servants but ignores our ever increasing retention fees
and the blooming bureaucracy at Lambeth High Street, where large numbers
of pharmaceutical mandarins can be found.
I think A. Matalia (PJ, 3 March, p245) has a valid point. I would go
further and argue that, stripped of its regulatory function and its statutory
membership requirement, and with a reluctant membership, dissolution
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is on the cards. So far, pharmacists
have paid for their own regulation through retention fees. But regulation
for the public benefit should be financed from the public purse. Few
pharmacists will agree to the Department of Health telling us how to
spend our assets.
The new General Pharmaceutical Council may require us to revalidate and
undertake continuing professional development and training, but I think
it should be up to us to decide how to fulfil these criteria. Pharmacists
should decide what role the current Society has in this regard. We are
all adults with degrees. My view is that we should be trusted with self-determination
rather than relying on an archaic Victorian-style organisation that dictates
to us what is professional and ethical, what is in the public good, what
is not and how we educate and develop ourselves — and selectively
enforces its rules, rewards us (with fellowships) when we are good and
punishes us when we are bad.
As a membership organisation like a royal college, the new body should
be judged by performance, ability to win and maintain support from pharmacists
and, above all, credibility — which can only be earned through
a voluntary membership arrangement. The Society’s assets should
not be used to support any particular interest groups or single issue
campaigns, because these are rarely all inclusive and benefit only sections
of the membership.
Moving forward, the only perceivable role I can see for the current Society,
with members’ assets, is to evolve into either a trade union style
association or a membership benefit organisation.
Eric Yuen
Walsall, West Midlands
Professionals should not have to join a professional body
From Mr A. Matalia, MRPharmS
John Fowler (PJ,
10 March, p282) misunderstood my
letter. I did not
say registration would cost £20; I suggested it should cost this
amount. But he is correct in that I do not care a fig about professionalism.
But when I worked as a pharmacist (many years ago), I would suggest I
was no less “professional” than him. Professionalism is subjective
and based upon opinions. I do not believe anybody should force often
misconceived opinions upon others. I believe that a “professional” should
be able to act as he or she believes, subject to the law alone. That
is true professionalism.
If one wants to subscribe to “professional” rules
then that should be a free choice. One must not be denied their right
to work within a “profession” just because they do not want
to join a professional body. That is why taking registration away from
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is good news. Membership of the Society
must be optional. Frankly, the only major role left for the Society is
continuing professional development and in that it faces competition
from the College of Pharmacy Practice. So I see no future for the Society
or a need to join it.
It is time “professionals” were allowed to practise their
profession without being forced to join a professional body. This is
the way forward in a bold new era.
Although I have not participated in what the Society has achieved over
the years, I assure him I have only gained from my lack of participation.
I would argue the Society achieved nothing momentous except to disenfranchise
its members and extract money from its conscripts at an alarming rate — nothing
to be proud of. A. Matalia
Coventry, West Midlands
Foolish allegation
From Mr D. I. Simpson, FRPharmS
For two week’s running, The Journal has published Andrew Burr’s
foolish allegations about the Save Our Society campaign (PJ, March
3, p245, and March 10,
p280).
Mr Burr may care to note the comments made by Keith Ridge, chief pharmaceutical
officer, Department of Health, at a meeting at the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s headquarters last week. Dr Ridge said that the proposals
to set up a General Pharmaceutical Council and to create a “royal
college” for professional leadership were not a “catastrophe” (as
Mr Burr alleges). Neither were they, Dr Ridge said, “about SOS
or anything related to that”. Rather, they were about treating
pharmacy in the same way as other principal health professions.
If Mr Burr will not take my
word for it (PJ, March 10, p280), I am sure
he will take Dr Ridge’s.
Douglas Simpson
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal