| • WCPPE (3)
• Retention fees (2)
• The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Reply from
Jeremy Holmes, Chief Executive and Registrar at the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society
|
Membership should be gravely concerned
From Mrs J. D. Benson, MRPharmS
I have not worked for a long time due to ongoing ill health and am likely
never to work again, but it is with mixed feelings that I have now decided
to resign as a registrant of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. This is
because I cannot bring myself to subsidise the regulatory activities
of the Society any longer and especially so since it was granted swingeing
new powers upon the rubber-stamping of the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians
Order 2007 earlier this year.
The new powers amount to what may be termed a “copper’s charter” for
the Society. For example, if a pharmacist is under investigation for
whatever reason and chooses not to say anything during an interview then
that pharmacist’s silence is taken to be non co-operation with
the Society in the performance of its duties and he or she will be done
for it — because of a supposed contravention of the Code of Ethics.
This is also the case if a pharmacist does not permit the Society to
have access to his or her medical records.
Notwithstanding all of the latter, the Society is now able to obtain
a court order to make, it seems, one’s pet goldfish give evidence
if necessary. What would the police give to be able to operate along
these lines? Pharmacists are damned if they do and damned if they do
not. This kind of situation goes against any sense of natural justice
and the membership should be gravely concerned.
Fortunately, the Society does not have powers of arrest, but for how
much longer? The membership is also expected to fund all this extra activity
by ever increasing retention fees.
It has been mentioned in previous correspondence in The Journal that
it may only be a matter of time before a young, inexperienced or naive
pharmacist decides to end it all because of the Society’s heavy-handedness.
This is an opinion with which I agree entirely.
To the great majority of members (or should I say “registrants”?)
the Society has become a monster, a ghastly self-serving bureaucracy
bursting at the seams with law-makers and rule-processors. I cite the
latest retention fee reminder — rudely presented and worded in
a breathtakingly arrogant manner — as the latest illustration of
its self-regarding tendency.
I would suggest that all remaining members should pull the Society back
into line and make it work for them, not against them. May I suggest
that a most effective way to do this would be a mass refusal to pay any
retention fee.
Joy D. Benson
Haverfordwest,
Dyfed
| |
JEREMY HOLMES, Chief Executive and Registrar at the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, responds:
The Society welcomes the continuing debate on regulatory
developments and the opportunity presented by responding to such letters
to explore some of the important issues in that debate. However, it
is always a matter of concern to the Registrar and Council when a registrant
resigns from the Society’s Register either due to ill health or
disillusionment with paying for regulatory activities.
The Society is the professional and regulatory body for pharmacists
in England, Scotland and Wales. It also regulates pharmacy technicians
on a voluntary basis.
The primary objectives of the Society are to lead, regulate, develop and represent
the profession of pharmacy.
As such, the Society has responsibility for a wide
range of functions that combine to support pharmacists in delivering high
quality services, in keeping up to date with best practice and in developing
new areas
of practice as well as assuring basic competence and fitness to practise,
and ensuring that poor performance and misconduct issues are dealt with
fairly.
Thus the Society does a great deal more than simply regulate the profession.
However, it is regulation that is the focus of this letter.
Before the implementation of the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order
2007 (“the Order”) earlier this year, fitness-to-practise procedures were
governed by the Pharmacy Act 1954 and Regulations made under this Act. The Statutory
Committee for example had been in existence since 1933 — thus the Act and
the old fitness-to-practise procedures were in urgent need of reform.
The Order has completely overhauled and modernised pharmacy regulation properly
to reflect the emerging clinical role and responsibilities of pharmacists
in working more closely with patients and other members of the health care
team.
The benefits and changes that have been brought into existence by the Order
are therefore a far cry from what is described here as a “copper’s
charter”.
In relation to the failure of a registrant to co-operate with
an investigation, these are not new provisions. This obligation is set
out in paragraph 7.10 of
the 2007 Code of Conduct. This states that a registrant must co-operate
with investigations into his or another health care professional’s fitness
to practise and abide by undertakings he gives or any restrictions placed
on his
practice. Registration as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician carries obligations
as well as privileges. We all accept, recognise and, hopefully, welcome that.
Article 60 of the Order does indeed allow a fitness-to-practise committee
(including the Registration Appeals Committee), or indeed any party involved
in proceedings
of the committees, including those acting for the defence, to issue a writ
of subpoena for a witness to attend and give evidence or to produce documents,
etc.
This new power therefore benefits any person who is involved in a fitness-to-practise
complaint, not just the Society.
This is a welcome development in ensuring that all relevant evidence can
be placed before committees.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the availability of
funds, schemes and programmes that are in place to assist pharmacists in
need of
assistance and support. These include the Benevolent
Fund (a registered
charity) that
offers help to pharmacists, former pharmacists and their dependants, and
pharmacy students.
The fund’s trustees act wholly independently of the Society.
The Society works extremely hard for registrants in leading, representing
and developing the profession. Its work is not and never has been focused
only
on regulating the profession and protecting the public. The fees that are
set by
the Council are carefully calculated to ensure that this Society continues
to act efficiently and effectively in the interests of the profession and
the public
across all its functions and activities. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal