| • White Paper (2)
• Calendar packs
• Children's medicines
• The profession
• MDS (2)
• MURs
• St John's wort
• Professionalisn
• Controlled drugs
• Wholesaling
• The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
Say no to technicians!
From Mr A. C. Gush, MRPharmS
I must disagree with Brian
Curwain’s assertion that pharmacists
are against technician membership of a future royal college out of academic
and financial snobbery (PJ, 21 April, p455). Nothing could be further
from the truth. The real reason for not wishing to grant technicians
membership status is that it would be inappropriate because there is
a clear conflict of interest.
We should not be fooled by the constant reference to the “pharmacy
family”. This is just a tool used to disguise the factual differences
between pharmacists and support staff. I am both pro-technician and pro-pharmacist.
Both have key yet distinct roles within pharmacy. The role and competencies
of a pharmacist are at a much higher level and different from those of
a technician. The educational and training requirements needed to enter
and remain practising in both cases are entirely different. We cannot
tolerate a shotgun marriage because it would undermine the development
and representation of both groups and render the royal college impotent.
It must, therefore, be made clear from the outset that it is pharmacists
whom the new royal college will represent. Of course, pharmacy support
staff and other professions allied to pharmacy will be consulted and
will have a voice where that is relevant but their own organisations
will be rightly responsible for their specific welfare.
Andrew Gush
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Why it must be a royal college for pharmacists
From Mr F. G. McCaul, MRPharmS
In replying to Steve
Acres (PJ, 7 April, p396) may I support Noel
Baumber (PJ, 21 April, p455). Pharmacists need a royal college to be an undiluted
voice, by pharmacists for pharmacists, providing the same support for pharmacists
as the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK does for our technician colleagues.
Why is this important? Consider the current debate around remote supervision
and skill mix. I sense that the overwhelming majority of the profession
would find the prospect of running a community pharmacy for more than a
few minutes, in the absence of a pharmacist, unsafe and therefore professionally
unacceptable. APTUK, with its ambitious voice for technicians, may well
be on the opposite side of the argument. Imagine if the President of the
current Royal Pharmaceutical Society were a technician. What position would
the Society adopt? An unrealistic scenario? Not really. I am convinced
that it is only the current byelaws, which dictate that the president of
the Society must be a pharmacist, that have prevented a technician from
standing for the presidency — and it would be a pretty close run
thing if the lay members of Council decided to vote for the technician.
What has this to do with the future royal college? Let us assume that technicians
are given full membership. There are more technicians than pharmacists
and, over the next few years, let us assume that 20,000 of them join. They
will demand significant representation on the Council and have an effective
voice. Of course, APTUK will continue in existence so technicians will
not only have their own professional association, they will be also be
in a position to effectively hijack ours. Far fetched? Perhaps, but I discovered
the following statement on the APTUK website: “The single most important
element of the [White] paper for pharmacy technicians is the need for strong
professional leadership. The proposal in the White Paper is for an organisation
akin to a royal college to provide this function. It is the view of APTUK
national officers that such an organisation should be ‘inclusive’;
in other words, it should be for both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.
To ensure that the voice of pharmacy technicians is heard, we have been
lobbying hard on your behalf. We expect to be members of any future royal
college. In a separate move, we have produced a paper outlining the reasons
why we believe pharmacy technicians must be included in any future royal
college.”
Which brings me neatly back to Mr Acres. It is clear both from the APTUK
website and Mr Acres’s letter that APTUK has an ambitious and highly
politicised strategy (some might even call it Machiavellian) to influence
the future of any royal college. This strategy, if realised, will leave
the College fatally divided and thus render it ineffective as a unified
professional voice for pharmacists.
I am sure the point is made. Pharmacists must have a voice of their own
Fin McCaul
Chairman,
Independent Pharmacy Federation |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal