| • White Paper (4)
• MURs (2)
• Dispensing errors
• Chemotherapy
• Medication review
• Pfizer
• Locum pharmacy
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
Council motion
From Mr J. Gentle, MRPharmS, and Mr A. C. Gush, MRPharmS
The following motion has been submitted for debate at the May Council
meeting: “This Council believes that as soon as possible the Society
should begin a process to enable it to recognise affiliate bodies whose
members benefit from paid services agreed to be provided by the Society.”
We hope that the debate will take place in the public part of the meeting
and will ask for a named vote so that the members will be able to see
how each Council member has voted.
We have been prompted by recent letters from Council members in The
Journal,
suggesting that there are different views on this matter and that a debate
is in progress. There is a feeling that this should be conducted openly
and that pharmacists have a right to know which Council member believes
in which position. The aim will be to reassure the membership that the
Council has their interests at heart and that pharmacists will retain
the pre-eminent role in any body akin to a royal college.
The relationship with support staff will need to be arranged in the longer
term and the solution is not clear cut but, along with other non-pharmacists,
it is hoped that a close working relationship will be established so
that on many policy issues, a united front can be developed.
A royal college-type body would want to include professionals in the
pharmaceutical sciences when developing policy and an inclusive approach
will be sought, but the post-nominal MRCPharm, for example, should be
reserved for pharmacists.
While the Council will lead on developing such policies, the membership
will have the final say on composition of the college.
John Gentle
Andrew Gush
Members of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
What is going on?
From Mr B. J. Clarke, MRPharmS
I am extremely concerned that both undue speed and a high level of secrecy
are being imposed with regard to the formation of the new pharmacy bodies.
What is the reason? Why is so much pressure being put on the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society to act so quickly? Why are Council members not being allowed
to discuss openly matters arising from the White Paper until they are
given clearance by the Department of Health?
The changes that are being undertaken will have significant effects for
both patients and the profession. It is essential that the new structures
are properly thought out. This can only be achieved if there is free,
frank and open consultation and discussion. This will take time and surely
it is much more important that this is done properly than that it is
done quickly. At the March Council meeting, Bob Michell expressed eloquently
the dangers of haste by looking at the track record of the Department
of Health (PJ,14 April, p436). Bad decisions made now could have serious
consequences for the future of pharmacy.
The new regulatory body will undoubtedly have to conform with government
requirements. Nevertheless the Society has a great deal of experience
and expertise in this area and it is surely in the public interest that
such experience and expertise is fully used. This will take time.
If there is too much pressure for speed then errors and omissions are
more likely to occur. The way that pharmacy is regulated will have many
consequences, both professional and financial, and it is extremely important
that there should be openness about what is being proposed so that a
proper discussion can take place.
My particular concern is with regard to the new body to represent pharmacists,
that is being referred to as a royal college-type body. In my view it
is absolutely essential that every member of the profession has the opportunity
to have access to all the information available. Council members should
be free to discuss openly all such matters. Only then are we, the members
of the profession, able to make appropriate comments and draw proper
conclusions. Why is there any need for secrecy? What is it that we are
not to be told and why? What has the Department got in mind?
I would strongly urge all pharmacists, whatever their views on the Society,
to get involved. So-called consultation that is really only about explaining
decisions that have already been made is of no use.
We need to take part in the process from the beginning; we must be allowed
to decide the sort of body that we want.
Barry J. Clarke
Epworth, Doncaster
| |
GRAHAM PHILLIPS, member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council, responds:
Mr Clarke is right to call for all members of
the Society to take part in the debate about the future of the
profession and the proposed royal college-type body that may result
from the
recent White Paper on health regulation.
To that end the Society is making plans to stimulate debate and
seek views from each and every member. These plans include speaking
at branch meetings, a special
section on the Society’s website (where we plan to post a short questionnaire),
regular e-mail alerts to the 20,000-plus members who have signed up to the
myRPSGB section of the website, updates through regular briefings for the press
by the
President and a series of road shows around the country for members.
Last week, I addressed a meeting of approaching 100 members at a west London
branch meeting, and the overwhelming feeling about the changes proposed in
the White Paper was positive. The General Pharmaceutical Council is not something
that is open to debate. It is government policy and, therefore, out of the
profession's
hands. But we do have the opportunity for a truly open debate about how we
establish our own professional body in the form of a royal college and there
is plenty
of time for this.
If the column inches in The Journal and other pharmacy publications are anything
to go by, there has been a lot of information — but maybe not as much as
we would all have liked — about White Paper developments in the public
domain. Abiding by government confidentiality rules is just something we have
to live with. By convention, advice to ministers is confidential, and it was
the Government, not the Society, which set the timetable. The Council has shared
what it has been able to within the limits of these restrictions, while trying
to advance the interests of members and the profession as a whole.
Finally, I cannot overemphasise the opportunity afforded by modern technology
for every member to take part in this debate. Readers who have not already
done so, are invited to sign up to myRPSGB |
Let us have a party that reflects and supports all of us
From Mrs J. Maiden, RegPharmTech
The following is my reply to Jonathan Buisson’s invitation
to the royal college party for pharmacy (PJ, 28 April, p484): Thank you
for the invitation. I am bringing a Party Seven and a few bottles of
Babycham for colleagues like Andrew
Gush, who think “we both have
key and distinct roles within pharmacy” (PJ, 28 April, p485). I
could reminisce with them, about when pharmacy was clear cut and they
guarded the nitrazepam while I wielded a mean spatula.
Life, however, seems to have moved on. Looking around today, most jobs
within our profession blur the boundaries of what was previously another’s.
Evolution, by definition, will not end so let us have a party that reflects
and supports all of us.
Juliet Maiden
Stafford
Blind acceptance of a royal college-type body
From Mr W. A. Baker, MRPharmS
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society as presently constituted has, broadly,
five main areas of activity: regulatory, educational, publishing, professional
(representing the views and interests of pharmacists) and looking after
the health and welfare of pharmacists and their dependants. In recent years,
the Society has put almost all its efforts into the first two of these
activities — this is a reason why the Society is so unpopular with
so many members and why members are not happy to pay so much in fees.
Now, the Government, in its wisdom, has decided that the regulation of
pharmacists should be given to a new body, a General Pharmaceutical Council.
This is the prerogative of Government and, presumably, legislation to effect
this will be promulgated. The White Paper also suggests that a new royal
college type body should be set up. Unless the Government intends to set
this up through legislation (which appears not be the case), why has it
made recommendations regarding the future of what is left of the Society?
Surely this should be left to the members of the Society to decide.
I note that the President has written that the Council
has pledged to work with other pharmacy bodies to help to create a royal college for the pharmacy
profession (PJ, 14 April, p417). This is in advance of discussions by its
members at a general meeting. What seems to have happened is a blind acceptance
that if the Government wants a royal college-type body it must be obeyed,
even if we disagree.
Why do we need a such a body when we already have the Society? Surely it
is not being proposed that this should co-exist with the new body? The
most logical way forward surely is to maintain the Society (including its
assets), and just strip out the regulatory aspects. This in fact could
be a great opportunity for the profession; we should then be able to oppose
excessive legislation that is against the interests of pharmacists, spend
more time on promoting the profession, and better look after any pharmacist
who is ill or in trouble.
A college would be difficult and troublesome to set up and almost certainly
be more interested in education rather that in looking after interests,
professional and personal, of pharmacists. Pharmacy technicians already
have their own association looking after their interests so should this
should not present a problem.
Long live the Royal Pharmaceutical Society!
Arthur Baker
Stockport, Cheshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal