| • Industrial pharmacists (4)
• Community pharmacy
• Responsible pharmacist (2)
• Package design
• The profession (2)
• The Society (3)
• Registration (2)
• Statins
• Retirement (2)
• Onlooker
• Caption competition
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Chatham House rules
From Mr A. Matalia, MRPharmS
I understand the Royal Pharmaceutical Society had a meeting with superintendents
of retail multiples during which the subject of the future professional
body, the services they would like to see and level of fees were explored.
I understand these meetings were held under “Chatham House rules” without
minutes being taken.
Within a modern professional body, I would argue that the practice of
having secret, unminuted meetings with the employers of pharmacists is
incompatible with the general feelings of the membership.
The Society is a body that is supposed to represent all members, and
not just employers. When it comes to issues of services, fees and the
Society’s pension gap, we all have an interest.
The moral obligations to members of the Society override the morally
binding obligations of Chatham House rules. In the spirit of openness,
I call upon the Society to publish the contents of these meetings, ignore
the secret opinions expressed and direct the superintendents to participate
in the Clarke Inquiry — which is the proper forum for such topics.
A. Matalia
Coventry
| |
JEREMY HOLMES, Chief Executive and Registrar,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
Mr Matalia raises a number
of issues regarding
our meetings
with pharmacy superintendents. We meet with a wide range of members and
stakeholders from individual pharmacists through to ministers and politicians
during the year to discuss a wide range of issues.
Many of these meetings
are held in private. This is normal business practice and allows a
free and frank exchange of ideas and opinions. There is nothing “secret” or,
indeed, unusual about this.
Readers will be aware of the Clarke Inquiry into a professional body
for pharmacy. The Society commissioned this inquiry, and is funding
it, because we believe
the future professional body should have the widest possible support from across
pharmacy.
We are seeking an independent view on the principles, functions
and structure of that body rather than making any unilateral decisions
on our own
future. Through the inquiry we genuinely want to engage with others bodies
and with pharmacy professionals to ensure the future professional
body is what is
wanted.
Once the inquiry’s remit and chairmanship were agreed by the
Society’s
Council, we have been an “arm’s length” commissioner. The
inquiry panel was appointed by the independent chairman and the consultation
process
developed independently of the Society.
We believe that it is important that all pharmacists engage with the inquiry
and we would encourage them to submit their ideas to the Clarke Inquiry,
if they have not already done so.
The inquiry gives pharmacists the opportunity
to lay
out their vision of what they would like from the professional body.
We want the new professional body to have support from across the
profession
and
to
be a body that pharmacists want to join. |
Skill enhancement or income stream?
From Mr P. J. Mulholland, MRPharmS
When I first registered as a supplementary prescriber we were told that
this was a “one-off” fee to make the annotation to the Register.
This was changed last year and all SPs had to pay a “supplementary
prescriber annual retention fee” of £35 in addition to the
normal retention fee in order to continue practising.
The annual fee was dropped this year. However, having now completed the
conversion course for independent prescribing I find myself being required
to pay another £35 in order to continue practising. Had I received
my practice certificate two weeks later I would have had to pay £49.
Is the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council trying to discourage
pharmacists from developing and enhancing their skills or are pharmacists
doing so just seen as another income stream?
Peter J Mulholland
Glasgow
GPhC should pay for access to Society’s assets
From Mr M. R. Hickey, MRPharmS
I was interested to see Your
Society, the new publication distributed
with the PJ of 5/12 January 2008. I was particularly drawn to
the box description “What
is Your Society?”
It is stated that the publication “is designed
to keep members abreast of developments at the Society, as its regulatory
role is taken over by the General Pharmaceutical Council and it develops
its professional leadership role”.
My interpretation of this is that the editor of this publication, Jeremy
Holmes, views the General Pharmaceutical Council as a novel body to be
created, while the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is a body which will
continue in existence, a continuing body that returns to the spirit of
its original remit of 1841: the leadership of pharmacists. The language
and tone of the statement would imply that the Society will not be abolished
and will continue to exist.
If this is the case then I have to assume that all the assets of the
Society, paid for by the members over 167 years, will be retained within
the Society. The Charter only allows for the distribution of assets in
the event of the Society being wound up.
I trust the Society will be
making these views plain to the Clarke Inquiry, and that it will point
out that, should the new council require use of, or access to, any
of the assets of the Society then that council will have to pay the appropriate
market value. Maurice Hickey
Aviemore Pharmacy
Inverness-shire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal