Future must be built on trust
Although the devil is always in the detail, there seems to be a great deal of support for the establishment of a royal college-type body to serve pharmacy and associated professions, and thereby, the public. This week's issue carries a number of items approaching the issue from different angles.
The “Waterloo
agreement”, backed by a number of pharmacy
organisations following a meeting just over two weeks ago, outlines what
they might expect a royal college to offer (p357).
Sandra Gidley, Lib Dem MP, pharmacist and member of the Carter working
party, throws down
the gauntlet to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and
challenges it to prove that it has the qualities to gather all these
interested parties together and show that it is in a position, with their
support and the backing of its members, to metamorphose into the new
organisation (p364).
Finally, the President
of the Society, in an interview with The Journal (p369), reveals a real enthusiasm to work not only with the Waterloo
group but also with other groups associated with pharmacy, and to embrace
specialist pharmacists, who may find a natural home in a royal college,
as well as generalist pharmacists, who may feel alienated by the political
shenanigans.
It can only be a fanciful idea that an organisation other than the Society
could persuade the Government that it should have the responsibility
for establishing the royal college. The Society, with its history and
intellectual capital, infrastructure and experienced staff, regional
and branch network, and the recently established three national pharmacy
boards, must be the starting point for any new venture.
How the pharmacy profession arrives at a royal college will be crucial
for its future: if the Society is able to reach out to the pharmacy organisations
and they can trust each other enough to work together to develop the
royal college, they will be making an important first step.
Meanwhile, the deliberations of the Carter working party are coming to
a close, with one more meeting scheduled for next week and Lord Carter
due to submit his report to ministers by Easter. Pharmacists may be surprised
how little they have heard about these deliberations and what direction
the discussions have taken but The Journal understands that those involved
are bound to confidentiality. The Journal also understands that the working
party was only established to advise Lord Carter and that the report
will be under his name alone.
It cannot be over-emphasised how important it is that his report is published
as soon as possible after Easter. Since the future of the Society, through
the establishment of a General Pharmaceutical Council and a body akin
to a royal college, will be decided by one person on the advice of a
few representatives of the profession, pharmacists must have sight of
the arguments put to ministers if they are to buy into the future.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal