| • White Paper
• Agenda for change
• Opiate addiction
• Pfizer
• Retention fees
• CPD
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
Time is short
From Mr A. J. Rogers, FRPharmS
May I enquire, through the courtesy of your columns, as to whether
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has a death wish? You reported on
the publication on the Society’s website of its early
thinking on the regulation White Paper (PJ, 14 July, p55).
Although I have repeatedly advocated the use of a website to facilitate
a two-way debate on the
future of the Society, a document of this importance should have been
sent to every member, preferably as a pull-out supplement to The
Journal.
If the Society “was not able to share the material
with its members or staff as early as it would have liked because of
the Government’s
confidentiality restrictions”, surely it should have been ready
to do so with a blaze of publicity at the earliest possible opportunity.
Most of the Society’s evidence to the Carter Working Party was
eminently sensible. It showed that it had thought the issues through,
that it was concerned to minimise the costs of transition for members
and that, although it had a clear opinion, it understood that it could
not dictate the future, but would need to work with other pharmaceutical
organisations and the wider membership. This approach should have earned
some much-needed respect from members.
Instead of a high profile release of this evidence, we had an announcement
of a research study “designed to identify the needs, wants and
expectations of members and other stakeholders”. I am not sure
what to make of this. My first reaction was that there is enough expertise
within the profession to conduct this research at a fraction of the
cost. However, I understand that the Society wants the study to be
carried out quickly, by truly independent and competent researchers,
so perhaps the cost is justified. But I think we are entitled to know
just what we are getting for our money.
What is Opinion Leader’s brief? Were other pharmacy organisations
consulted on this research? How is the research to be conducted? Why
is participation limited to a sample? What is the sample size, and
how was it selected? What questions are to be asked? What information
will participants be given to inform their response? This project will
take 12 weeks to conduct and will then be used to support and inform
a wider consultation process. Is that it? Does this mean we should
all go on our summer holidays and forget about the problem until the
autumn? Can we afford to wait until then in the hope of engaging the
membership in this debate?
Perhaps, The Journal should take the initiative. Forgive me if I seem
obsessed with pull-out supplements, but a regular weekly inclusion
edged in grey (or black?) may emphasise the seriousness of this issue.
All interested parties could be invited to contribute and all the news,
opinion and correspondence on this topic could be included in the one
section.
Time is short. The Department of Health seems determined to destroy
the Society, and replace it with a “modern”, compliant
organisation. A few vociferous members think the Society is an expensive
luxury, though they have failed to explain how they will get professional
support on the cheap. Most members seem strangely unperturbed or, dare
I say, apathetic. I would remind readers, in the words of Edmund Burke,
that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good
men do nothing”.
Alan Rogers
Ewell Village, Surrey
| |
The Journal took the view that the Carter papers were too cumbersome
to be reproduced either as a pull-out section or supplement and that
this was a real opportunity to use the web to full advantage. If Mr
Rogers or other pharmacists are unable to access these papers, we would
be happy to print them out and post them.
Mr Rogers should also be assured
that the research to be undertaken by Opinion Leader will be of a
high quality and the views of engaged and disengaged members will be
sought.
These will be used to inform the stages in the development of the
professional body as outlined in last week’s Leading article “What
do you hope for?” (21 July, p60).
— EDITOR |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal