| • NHS (2)
• Retention fees (5)
• Postgraduate education
• Independent prescribing
• Registration
• The profession (2)
• Pack sizes
• Retirement
Letters to the Editor
|
Registration
Unacceptable words on declaration
From Mr S. Axon, FRPharmS
How right the three
correspondents who raised the issue of the wording
of the non-practising pharmacists declaration (PJ, 1 December
2007, p621) are.
In 2005 when the Register was split, the application form for payment
of the retention fee caused an uproar in the pages of the PJ and
led to resignations from the Register by those who could not accept the
wording
of the declaration for the non-practising pharmacist for similar reasons
to those cited by the aforementioned correspondents.
Along with some
other pharmacists, rather than resign I amended what I felt to be unacceptable
wording on the declaration. The (then) Registrar accepted these amended
declarations pending a decision by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Council as to the wording although little if any publicity was given
to this.
In 2006 the Council revised the wording to a more acceptable form: “I
have read the criteria for non-practising status and will comply with
the conditions set out in the guidance: I will not represent myself at
any time as having rights to practise in Great Britain.” This wording,
though not perfect, along with its reference to guidelines proved to
be acceptable to most.
Without warning for 2008 the wording has changed to: “I hereby
declare that I will not undertake any work or give any advice in relation
to the dispensing or use of medicines, the practice of pharmacy or the
provision of health care in Great Britain, the Channel Islands or the
Isle of Man.”
I find Mr Gardner’s assurances questionable for the following reasons: • The declaration is clear and unambiguous and any “confusion” must
be in the minds of those who drafted it.
• Since no reference at all is made to “guidance” in the
new wording Mr Gardner’s assurances based on this guidance are
of no use at all. In any case, in legal interpretation guidance cannot
override unambiguous wording in a signed declaration.
• No reference is made in any of the declarations from 2005–2007
to “professional discretion” and no exceptions are mentioned
so Mr Gardner’s reference to this has no firm basis.
• Similarly the generic definition of practice is overridden by the specific
reference to work and advice in the new wording so Mr Gardner’s
reliance upon this is also questionable.
Mr Gardner’s reference to taking “steps in 2009” seems
to be an admission that a mistake has been made and as the forms have
to be returned by 19 December it is not good enough. If members cannot,
in good conscience, sign the declaration this year they may be struck
off the Register and subsequently, if the Council comes up with
acceptable words next year they have to apply for reinstatement, paying
the penalty charge — recently increased by 50 per cent. This is
not a likely scenario as the cost will be in excess of £1,200.
I wrote to the Registrar about the unacceptable wording when I received
my form on 12 November and I am now in correspondence with him.
In the meantime, as Clause11(b) permits Mr Holmes to accept my declaration
as amended or to remove my name from the Register for non-payment of
fees, in order to avoid being ignominiously struck off the Register,
my form has been returned with the words “or give any advice” and “or
the provision of health care” deleted from the declaration.
I have
also sent a covering letter stating that if the amendment to the wording
is unacceptable to the Registrar my resignation from the Register should
take effect from 31 December 2007. This leaves the decision to
be made by Mr Holmes as to whether to accept my amendment as a stop-gap
or accept my resignation. I am not holding my breath. Stephen Axon
Amersham,
Buckinghamshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal