|
• White Paper (5)
• Pseudoephedrine (2)
• Eczema
• Chemotherapy
• Community pharmacy (2)
• Locum pharmacy
• Packaging
• Dispensing
• MDS
• Parallel imports
• Prescription charges
• The Society
• Skill mix
• Professionalism
• Boots travel insurance
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
Let us work with technicians
From Dr B. P. Curwain, MRPharmS
It is now clear that pharmacy technicians, through their organisation
the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK, want
to be able to join whatever
royal college is set up for the pharmacy profession (PJ, 7 April, p387).
There is clearly both support for and opposition to this among pharmacists.
I believe that it would be unhelpful to try to keep our technician colleagues
out. We are members of the same family and should stick together.
Technicians did not exist as such when the Society was set up and have
not been in a position to contribute to its assets or to be held responsible
for its liabilities. I hope that we will be able to eschew both academic
and financial snobbery and work with technicians on setting up the royal
college.
Brian Curwain
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
One profession could have several groups
From Mrs D. Drury, MRPharmS
It has been mentioned that pharmacy and dentistry both involve working
in teams. Regulation of dentistry is undertaken by the General Dental
Council. It looks as if in the future a General Pharmaceutical Council
will be the regulatory body for both pharmacists and support staff in
a similar to way to that of the GDC for dental regulation.
However, that does not mean that the team members have the same professional
associations, since these depends on qualifications and responsibility.
Dentists belong to the British Dental Association, which is only for
postgraduate qualified dentists. Dental hygienists take a BSc in oral
health science and belong to the British Dental Hygienists Association.
Dental technicians take a diploma course and belong to the Dental Technologists
Association. Dental nurses, who undertake the NVQ level 3 in health care
and dental nursing, belong to their own Association of Dental Nurses.
So it appears that it is possible to have one regulatory body for a profession
but for each group in it to belong to its own association.
Dorothy Drury
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
A royal college for pharmacists, not technicians
From Mr N. Baumber, FRPharmS
I must express strong views as to why pharmacy technicians must not
be members of any future royal college of pharmacists.
Currently, along with its regulatory role, the Society is the professional
association for pharmacists; indeed only a pharmacist can be a member.
Technicians and pharmacists do not have identical interests hence technicians,
rightly, have their own separate and distinct professional body, the
Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK.
I encourage colleagues to take a look at the association’s website
(www.aptuk.org). It reveals a powerful political body, hugely ambitious
for the future of pharmacy technicians. The site contains a joint statement
with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society which says that APTUK “has
no formal link to any employer, any other pharmacy organisation, association
or group. The association is the recognised political, professional and
representative voice for pharmacy technicians in all sectors of pharmacy.
The association aims to promote the agenda and best interests of pharmacy
technicians across the UK. The association views its future role as remaining
the principal professional representative organisation for pharmacy technicians — a
role which is complementary to and distinct from the regulatory roles
of the Society.” It also states that the Society “supports
the association’s aims to strengthen its role as the professional
representative organisation for pharmacy technicians”.
The site also contains a joint statement with the Guild of Healthcare
Pharmacists, which notes that “the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
is the regulatory and representative professional body for pharmacists
in Great Britain. Pharmacists are members of RPSGB. The Association of
Pharmacy Technicians UK is the professional representative body for pharmacy
technicians.”
The site lays out the forward strategy for APTUK in its core principles: “The
Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK is the recognised professional
representative organisation for pharmacy technicians, in all sectors
of the profession, throughout the UK. The association exists to represent,
protect and progress the professional interests of pharmacy technicians.
… The association remains true to one of its founding principles, ‘run
by pharmacy technicians, for pharmacy technicians’.”
The association’s membership is now larger than at any time in
its history. The expectations of pharmacy technicians and of their association
have never been greater. Pharmacy technicians who want their opinions
and interests to be heard and taken into account are on the increase,
both in number and, it seems, in the strength of their conviction.
The principal criticism levelled at the Society is that, while it has
been an effective regulator (perhaps too effective), it has not led the
profession or championed our professional interests adequately. A royal
college of pharmacists, freed from the constraints of regulation that
have hampered the Society, is exactly what is needed now.
Clearly, there must be a strong working relationship between APTUK and any
future college. But membership must be separate and distinct, or else our royal
college will have a confused and ineffectual voice from the start.
Pharmacists must not lose the opportunity borne of splitting the Society to
gain a strong, focused and unified professional voice. What we need is a royal
college of pharmacists, run by pharmacists, for pharmacists.
Noel Baumber
Member
Independent Pharmacy Federation
Let us look to the future
From Mr D. W. Davidson, FRPharmS
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has evolved over the past 160 years
to meet the needs of the health of the nation at appropriate times, and
we must realise that world-wide these needs are changing. So we must
separate regulatory functions from professional functions in such a way
so that we meet the needs of today while safeguarding our professional
obligations. However, if we try to separate everything exactly we may
throw the baby out with the bath water.
Would it not be better to frame these two different requirements in a
flexible way so that as parts evolve in one we can see the effects on
the other? We have a history of “always getting there” eventually
and evolving as we go. As a pharmacist of 56 years’ standing I
can look back and see how much pharmacy has changed over these years
and I have no doubt, after much argument and debate, we will arrive at
an acceptable way forward for the functions to split.
Let us look to the future, which will be completely different from the
past, in a positive way and not spend too much time on little details,
important as they are, and arrive at a new and exciting future that will
evolve with experience and give the profession a standing and purpose
appropriate to the changing times. Let us not get stuck in a time warp.
Douglas Davidson
Blairgowrie,
Perthshire
Our new royal college should be like the Royal College of Nursing
From Mr E. W. Black, MRPharmS
I read with interest the letter from Mark
Walker advocating a royal
college of pharmacists (PJ, 7 April, p396). I agree wholeheartedly with
his suggestion but perhaps for different reasons.
When I first was made aware of the White Paper’s proposals for
the future of our profession, I asked, perhaps naively, why any aspect
of “trade union” (by which I mean an organisation similar
in activity and aspiration to the Royal College of Nursing, which successfully
represents individuals but also aspires to promote excellence in practice
and to shape health policies) activity had been explicitly ruled out
for the proposed new royal college. It has been suggested to me, by prominent
individuals within the profession, that other bodies have the job of
representing individual pharmacists’ interests, and that any perception
of trade unionism may alienate the membership.
However, I would contend that most of our profession, ie, employed community
pharmacists and locums, have no one representing them and this lack of
formal representation has contributed to relatively poor working conditions
and the well documented resultant low morale. Many such pharmacists (myself
included) may welcome the formation of a professional body that, as well
as looking after professional development, attempts to improve the working
conditions of its members.
It is increasingly apparent that membership of any proposed royal college
is likely to be voluntary. If this is the case would it not be prudent
to allow the proposed royal college to develop in such way as to maximise
its attraction to potential members. For too long the Society has been,
perhaps erroneously but unfortunately, perceived as almost entirely irrelevant
by most of its members. Some pharmacists may be alienated by the idea
of a royal college similar to the RCN, but I would contend that the formation
of such an organisation may offer the best chance of our new royal college
attracting members and, therefore, maintaining its relevance.
Ewan Black
Glasgow
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal