Beware the creation of a “body akin to a poodle”
A warning that the Government and its advisers are attempting to create a “body akin to a poodle” for pharmacy has been given by Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council member Douglas Simpson.
Speaking to the Society’s West Metropolitan branch on 24 May, Mr
Simpson described as shameless the views recently expressed by health
minister Lord Hunt, Government adviser Lord Carter and pharmaceutical
officers Keith Ridge and Bill Scott.
Mr Simpson told the branch that he found the official attitude to the
Society astonishing and quite uncalled for. He reminded branch members
of the Society’s many achievements and attributes, including the
following:
• Founded by pharmacists in 1841, it had since then done its best to
raise standards
• It set up its own school in 1842 as a means of raising standards of
practice
• It was given its regulatory role in the 1930s, when it did not seek
it
• It has performed its regulatory duties in an exemplary manner, unlike
the medical profession
• It has continually fought to raise educational standards, such that
the one-year pharmacy course progressed to become a four-year degree
course plus a preregistration year
• It publishes outstanding books such as Martindale and first class journals
such as The Pharmaceutical Journal
• It originated the modern form of the the British National Formulary,
an outstanding book published jointly with the British Medical Association
• It cherishes the profession’s heritage through its historical
collections
• It cherishes its members and their dependants through benevolence
• It spotlights pharmaceutical science and practice in a major annual
conference and by publishing specialist journals
• It responsibly and soundly represents the profession’s interests,
while always being mindful of the public interest
• It welcomes members’ involvement through the branches and regions
But, said Mr Simpson, despite those achievements and attributes, and
many more, people in government circles were warning the Society against
engaging in a land-grab in relation to the “body akin to a royal
college”. But the only land-grabbers, he said, were the Government,
in its takeover of the regulatory role, and a number of shameless pharmacy
organisations busy trying to grasp a piece of the action. It was the
Society that was the victim of these depredations. Among those speaking
out against the Society were:
• Health minister Lord Hunt, who said that the body akin to a royal
college should be a new
body and not a reincarnation of the Society (PJ, May 5, p513).
• Scottish chief pharmacist Bill Scott, who, referring to the Society,
said, “We are not in the game of inventing the same” (King’s
Fund report)
• English chief pharmacist Keith Ridge, who said that a royal college
should not simply be a reinvention of the Society (King’s Fund
report).
• Government adviser Lord Carter, who said that the royal college should
not be a rebadged version of the Society and that it would have to
be different in functions and culture (King’s Fund report)
“These people,” said Mr Simpson, “show no shame in
being party to an action that severely destabilises the Society — namely,
the removal of regulation and the income that goes with it — and
seeking to create a body akin to a poodle to trot tamely behind the GPhC.
This particular animal, by the way, would, if the Government gets its
way, be yet another regulatory body, and one that could well try to take
the Society’s assets with it. If the Government wanted to wreck
the Society, it could have found no better way of doing it.
“Let it set up its GPhC. But let the Society have the freedom to
develop with its members a future where it is able to represent and promote
pharmacists’ collective
interests and meet their professional needs — which is in the public
interest, by the way. At the same time, it should be encouraged to develop
the means of performing the complementary function required of the Government
and the General Pharmaceutical Council, as set out in the White Paper.
“What is wrong with that? It is the least that a responsible government
should do. It seems pretty sensible to me.” |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal