The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7466 p205
25 August 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• The Society (4)
• Retention fees (12)
• Venous thromboembolism
• Social capital
• Pharmacist attire

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Mistaken impression

From Miss A. M. Lewis, FRPharmS

The Broad spectrum article by Graham Southall-Edwards (this issue, p204) leaves the reader with the mistaken impression that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is dealing with an increasing number of complaints and is taking ever more drastic action; this is not the case.

Last year the Society received 821 complaints against members — this is fewer than the 874 complaints received in 2005. The number of cases heard by the Society’s Statutory Committee remained the same in 2005 and 2006 (66 cases). At the investigatory stage of the disciplinary process the number of advisory letters sent to pharmacists to guide their practice doubled and the number of warnings halved.

As for our new procedures: yes, they have rigour and set, robust timescales, and rightly so. Individuals have the right to know, with certainty, the pathway of any complaint against them. The stress caused by any complaint made to the regulator surely is lessened if it is dealt with within agreed timeframes and a defined procedure.

The timescales are set out in the “The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (fitness to practise and disqualification etc. Rules) Order of Council 2007 (Rules)”. They were widely consulted on and are consistent with the provisions for other regulators.

The Society is subject to clear regulatory constraints; it has to ensure that decisions taken are reasonable, proportionate, fair and timely and has to withstand scrutiny from an overarching regulator, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. It is surprising that Mr Southall-Edwards is not welcoming the recruitment of in-house legal expertise — this will reduce the Society’s costs at a time when he is condemning the fee increase.

The Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 and the Rules have had extensive coverage in the pharmacy press including The Pharmaceutical Journal. The provisions on disclosure of information and costs referred to by Mr Southall-Edwards, and other provisions in the Order, are standard provisions which most of the other regulatory bodies have operated for some time.

The recent initiative on the decriminalising of dispensing errors and the piloting of agreed criteria is part of a larger project that will address the threshold criteria for disciplinary procedures and referrals through the disciplinary process. The profession will be consulted on the future implementation of the new disciplinary procedures as they have been on most recent changes.

Yes, the regulatory landscape has changed. Yes, it does vary across Europe. But sound regulation is at the heart of every pharmacist’s future and helps to make Britain a safer place for people to take medicines.

Ann Lewis
Secretary and Registrar
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Can retired members have a title?

From Mrs A. Farrelly, MRPharmS

Can the Royal Pharmaceutical Society consider giving some title to pharmacists who retire from the Register due to lack of money?

I feel aggrieved that after more than 50 years service to the community I will be treated like someone being struck off for misconduct if I retire from the Register next year. My certificate will be revoked and I will have no right to use any restricted titles.

Other professions do not treat their retired members in this cavalier fashion; why are we so petty minded? I understand the legal requirements but surely some compensatory form could be devised.

A. Farrelly
Wallington, Surrey

Life membership?

From Mr A. L. Bartlett, MRPharmS

I will soon be 90 years of age and I have paid retention fees to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society since I qualified in February 1940, with the exception of the period when I served in the Royal Air Force in No 50 Squadron, Lancasters, in bomber command.

Perhaps when the Society is discussing retention fees, it could consider awarding life membership to members who reach the age of 90 and relieve them of the necessity to pay anything in their twilight years. Or would this kind of action put a strain on its finances?

Les Bartlett
Southampton

A profligate misuse of our monies

From Mrs A. R. Shaw, MRPharmS

I have received by post the booking form for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s open day in September. At a time when the membership is being asked to pay an increase of 50 per cent in fees, I am outraged to be sent this application form in A4 format, in a large brown envelope, at a postage cost of 44p, the first class postage for a “large letter”. If the form had been folded, it could have been sent in a standard small envelope, second class, at a cost of 23p.

It is precisely this profligate misuse of our monies that so infuriates us. I have complained similarly about the repeated expensive mailings for the British Pharmaceutical Conference but to no avail. And even more worrying, how many other examples of such waste occur without our knowledge? It is high time that practice procedures at Lambeth were examined and necessary savings made. We have to watch our pennies. Is it too much to ask that the Society’s Council also watches them?

Ruth Shaw
Bolton

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Retention fees)