| • White Paper (4)
• Technicians
• Pseudoephedrine
• Community contract
• Substance misuse
• Dispensing errors
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
New body should not be just the Society rebadged
From Mr A. Kershaw
Lord Hunt (PJ, 19 May, p583) is pushing at an open door. There is, to
my knowledge, no member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
who does not believe that the new leadership body must be broadly based,
inclusive of all relevant interests and led by the undisputed leaders
of the profession. We are not, as a group, interested in winners and
losers, territorial disputes or any kind of land grab.
That the Society must have a leading role in helping the new body to
emerge is to recognise not its pre-eminence but its obligations. Since
the outset the Society has had both professional (promoting pharmacy)
and regulatory (distinguishing between qualified and unqualified practitioners)
functions. It is an authoritative — although not the only — voice
for pharmacy, a recognised centre of excellence in its own right and
the custodian of pharmacy’s heritage.
It has also, through its steadily modernising regulatory work, been a
powerful protector of the public interest — driving educational
and professional standards, maintaining the definitive Register and dealing
effectively with dysfunction.
The challenge now is to move from a body that pharmacists have had to
join to one they want to join. This is by no means easy and to say that
the Society cannot achieve it alone is simply to state the obvious. It
can happen only if all professional interests are fully engaged. That
requires the Society and others to put aside sectional interests, catch
a vision for the future and (dare I breathe it?) consciously exercise
some collective amnesia about the disputes of recent years.
Of course the new body should not be just the Society rebadged. The new
start must be plain for all to see. What is needed is the professional
equivalent of a cabinet of all the talents. Outstanding professionals
who have, for whatever reason, come to distrust the electoral process
must be re-engaged. The wisdom of the Society’s fellows (manifest
at last week’s inaugural fellows’ dinner) must be tapped
ruthlessly. Trust managers must be helped to see that releasing high
quality professionals for Society duties is in the interests of their
local communities as well as of the public as a whole.
And, there is nothing to be gained by starting discussion on the basis
of who should be kept out. Trench warfare would be outdated even on the
Antiques Roadshow.
Lay members of the Society’s Council will bring to the table their
experience of a wide range of professions and backgrounds. We will do
our best to help the debate towards a wise outcome. We will do this in
good faith and dispassionately, recognising always that decisions on
all this are, ultimately, for the Society’s members.
Lord Carter’s report demonstrates his understanding of all this.
Let us read his runes carefully.
Alan Kershaw
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Let the Society continue in a new form
From Mr S. H. Curtis, MRPharmS, and others
In response to the letter from Lord
Hunt (PJ, 19 May, p583), in which
he attempts to clarify issues raised regarding the new General Pharmaceutical
Council (GPhC) and a body akin to a royal college, my colleagues and
I have a number of serious concerns that now arise as a matter of absolute
importance.
Although we agree that removing the regulatory function from the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society is both understandable and acceptable, we demand
that, in addition to the Government funding every aspect of the GPhC,
absolute figures are arrived at for costing this separate body. We would
also ask where it would be housed, to what extent current staffing and
pensions will be transferred and what compensation would be offered to
the Society for the diminution of its best assets — its employees.
Furthermore, if the Society is replaced by two bodies (eg, the GPhC and
a royal college) we are concerned that membership fees will increase
considerably to sustain the function of two new bodies.
Lord Hunt includes the vitally important sentence: “But there should
be no doubt that the royal college will be a new body”. This begs
the question: What power does Lord Hunt hold that he can personally decree
the removal of a royally chartered body, all of its assets, staff, pensions
and property, and shut it down, forevermore? We are not sure that anyone
can do this, barring perhaps the Queen and the Government together, but
certainly not Lord Hunt alone without authority. We demand absolute clarification
of this extremely important point: is he threatening the complete extermination
of the Society, or are his words weighty but of intent more than authority?
Could Lord Hunt please explain precisely what is so wrong with the Society,
without its regulatory role, metamorphosing its Royal Charter and Section
60 Order into a body fit for the new purpose, while retaining its history,
its staff, its buildings and pensions and other assets? We accept it
will need remarketing and changing by grand design from its core to its
skin, but it has so much of value, and means so much to those who have
been party to its machinations throughout its lengthy history. We, its
members, choose not to destroy it so flippantly, and demand that the
threat is rescinded, and the door opened for the Society, in all its
glory, to continue its work supporting pharmacy and educating pharmacists,
albeit as a new organisation inside an old building.
Steven Curtis
Stanmore, Middlesex
Stephanie Bancroft
Pinner, Middlesex
Shilpa Gohil
London
Shaheen Bhatti
Greenford, Middlesex
Suresh Hirani
Stanmore, Middlesex
Profession must decide
From Mr J. W. Wood, MRPharmS
Lord Hunt, in his letter (PJ, 19 May, p583) correctly points out that
leadership of the profession is primarily a matter for the membership
of the profession itself to decide. I am, therefore, concerned at his
premature conclusion that much of the profession has decided that the
royal college will be a new body.
As a young pharmacist I recognise the huge opportunities presented to
the profession in the White Paper “Trust assurance and safety — the
regulation of health professionals in the 21st century”. This finally
gives pharmacy a chance to channel its energy into strong professional
and clinical leadership, drawing on the talents of many within the profession.
I also recognise the need not to discard the 160 years of corporate memory,
international reputation and intellectual ability of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society. Establishing a new body and destroying the core of pharmacy
infrastructure and resources could cost the profession dearly and I do
not believe this would be in the best interests of the public or the
profession in the long term.
The Society is most definitely best placed to evolve by fundamentally
changing structures, functions, identity and the way it is led if it
is to fulfil the role of a body akin to a royal college. This process
needs to be driven by all those in the profession who have something
to bring, inclusive of generalists, specialists and members of the wider
pharmacy family.
I share and welcome Lord Hunt’s passion for a “successful,
prominent and influential” body to develop and lead the profession
forward. However, I believe it is for the members of the pharmacy profession
to decide how this is taken forward. I urge everyone to engage in the
wide-ranging, ongoing and constructive discussions.
James Wood
Past President, British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association
Let the Society be preserved
From Mr O. A. Fasogbon, MRPharmS
The editorial in The Journal of 5 May (p512) points the way forward
for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The Society seems to have specialised
in cutting off its nose to spite its face, with the erroneous belief
that people in the Government will protect its interest. It has consistently
failed.
The profession has invested so much in the Society and we have a duty
to make it survive.
Yet, I often wonder if the survival of the profession is paramount to
our leaders. Their actions and thoughts seem to take our survival as
a profession for granted and in the process they endanger our very survival.
We have a right to guard jealously our survival as a profession.
Take a look at the pharmaceutical industry. This should be the pharmacists’ domain,
we should be the soul of the industry. However, the role of the pharmacist
today has been overtaken by others as Qualified Persons. In a recent
discussion with a director of one of the big pharmaceutical manufacturers,
who is also a pharmacist, he agreed that the pharmacist is the only one
trained in every aspect of the plant’s manpower needs, but others
have usurped the roles. He went further to say that his company has no
direct input or need whatsoever for the Society and he wondered what
will happen when an unsympathetic non-pharmacist occupies his position.
This scenario is about to repeat itself with the advent of the all important
pharmacy technicians who now are sitting on the pharmacy board in Wales.
Our long-term survival may be in question if the current situation is
not resolved in favour of the survival of the Society.
The British Medical Association describes itself on its website as:
• A voluntary professional association of doctors
• Speaking for doctors at home and abroad
• Providing services for its members
• An independent union
• A scientific and educational body
• A publisher
• A limited company funded by its members
The Society should be all of these and more. The only missing role is
that of an independent union. Again our uniqueness means the Society
has to find a way to represent the employer pharmacists as well as the
employee pharmacists.
The Society needs to build on its proud achievements and develop many
other areas that it could not develop because of the clog of regulation.
The Society, I assure you, will not be short of members.
Pharmacy is a profession which could yet rise to the great heights of
its destiny, but only if we recognise its potentials.
There are key areas that the Society has ceded to other bodies like the
National Pharmacy Association, Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
and Pharmacists’ Defence Association, the field is now level for
the Society to take its rightful position.
Redefining and repositioning itself should not stop the Society from
playing its natural key role in the founding of a royal college of pharmacy
which will embrace other stakeholders.
Olu Fasogbon
Romford,
Essex
| |
DAVID PRUCE, director of practice and quality improvement
at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
The Government White Paper
on the regulation
of health professionals published in February proposes the creation
of a General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) to carry out the regulatory
functions
currently undertaken by the Society. It also called for a body akin
to a royal college to provide professional leadership.
Mr Fasogbon clearly feels passionately about the future of the Society
and it is important that members engage with the debate and express
their views as to
what they think a future professional leadership body for pharmacy might
look like.
The Society believes that the pharmacy profession must determine the future
of its professional body. It is worth reiterating what we have said about
what is
necessary to underpin the formation of the GPhC and body akin to a royal
college.
The new arrangements ought to improve on current structures, leading to both
improved public and patient safety and stronger professional leadership for
pharmacists.
The transition to a GPhC and the possible establishment of a body akin to
royal college needs to be properly managed and resourced.
Structures for both regulation and professional leadership need long-term
financial sustainability.
Strong and transparent governance arrangements will be needed for both the
regulation and professional leadership of the pharmacy profession. The pharmacy
profession
and other stakeholders ought to be fully considered and consulted during
the process of change.
A great deal of discussion and debate has to take place in order to canvas
the profession’s opinion on the White Paper proposals. The Society has hosted
a series of stakeholder meetings to discuss the key issues, the most recent being
the Society’s branch representatives’ meeting in May. Latest
information on the White Paper discussions |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal