The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7472 p383
6 October 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

• NHS leadership
• Open Day (2)
• Retention fees (4)
• White Paper
• Supply chain
• The Society (2)

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Out of touch

From Mr C. E. Newman, MRPharmS

The reply from Graham Phillips (PJ, 22 September, p327) appears to epitomise the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s approach to problems at the moment, ie, spend more money.

With the Society in a state of financial crisis where is the commitment to try new approaches, or re-engineer systems? I am sure Mr Phillips is correct that the membership wants “the Society to speak with a stronger voice” but that does not automatically mean spending more (of the membership’s) money.

This consistent failure even to consider such efficiencies highlights just how out of touch with the real world the Society has become. Pharmacists and other frontline staff in health care have been solving problems without extra funding for many years.

With the Society facing such an uncertain future how can now be a sensible time to create three new posts? Even if the Society continues to exist after the review it will have fewer responsibilities and hence require fewer staff.

Presumably someone has costed out the potential redundancy costs already. Surely now is not a good time to increase employment costs by a further £98,000?

Clive Newman
Nottingham

“Taking ever more drastic action”

From a pharmacist

In her rebuttal letter (PJ, 25 August 2007, p205) Ann Lewis, former Secretary and Registrar at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds to the facts presented in Graham Southall-Edwards’s article (PJ, 25 August, p204) discussing the implementation of the Pharmacy and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007.

She scarcely attempts to address them. More information and debate on this subject is essential.

I cannot agree that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is not “taking ever more drastic action”.

As one of the dozens of pharmacist recipients of the “large envelope”, with its contents couched in hostile language, I can attest to the shock and distress I felt. The feelings of anyone receiving such an assault are worse than Mr Southall-Edwards described.

I was invited to declare that I was unfit to practise as a pharmacist because of evidence held in the Registrar’s office. This related to the time when, experiencing severe mental depression, I resigned from the Register. Following my recovery I applied to be readmitted. This took five months from the date of my initial request and the process appeared to be an ad-hoc, mismanaged and untimetabled affair, with no written guidelines, or at least none was provided to me.

The allegations made against me were culled from my GP’s report sent to the Society at its request. That report provided a history of this episode, said I was back to my old self in all respects and gave no suggestion that I was at any future risk of a similar event.

The allegations made by the Society were incorrectly enumerated and scarcely made sense as the charges shifted between tenses. It was only after consulting the barrister who would act on my behalf, that I could understand that I was being accused of being currently mentally ill because formerly I had been so.

The Society’s documents presumably came from “the in house legal expertise” that Miss Lewis claims will reduce the costs to membership. Those involved in the process appeared to have no knowledge of mental health issues.

The Investigating Committee determined “there is no real prospect of a finding that X’s fitness to practise is impaired as a result of adverse health …”. I would have liked them to have said that this case should not have been brought before them.

The whole exercise, serving the papers, funding the Investigating Committee meeting was a waste of members’ funds. I ceased working as a pharmacist as soon as I became ill. Any professional would do the same. It is no wonder pharmacists are distrustful, fearful and apathetic in the faced of continued assaults on their autonomy and integrity.

I would be surprised if the overarching regulator, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, would believe the process to which I was subjected was “reasonable, proportional, fair and timely”.

Name and address withheld
298/3

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Supply chain)