The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7487 p117-118
2 February 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• Clarke Inquiry (2)
• New professional body
• The Society (2)
• Community pharmacy (2)
• Pharmacy practice
• Technicians
• The industry
• WCPPE
• Drug addiction
• Research

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Is it time to cast off the shackles of the Jenkin judgment?

From Mr T. E. Searle, FRPharmS

Having been on the Register for nearly 70 years, I believe that I may be able to contribute usefully to the debate on the future of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Michael Parker (Industrial Pharmacist, December 2007, pS1 PDF 250K) has offered a cogent list of possible aims, but these will become a pipe dream if the Society fails to retain adequate membership and resources.

I echo the concerns eloquently expressed by Gerry Diamond (PJ, 3 November 2007, p498), and his suggestion of a coalition of healthcare representatives is worthy of consideration provided that there is sufficient support to ensure promotion of the interests of all sections of our profession.

At its inception the Society was primarily a body of independent proprietor pharmacists but, since that time, there has grown up a body of public sector pharmacists while, more recently, the multiples have developed in size and influence until a major proportion of the membership is now in salaried employment.

Proprietors, hospital pharmacists, multiples, students, even technicians and many small specialist groups all have their own organisations but, curiously, there has never been an exclusive body for all employee community pharmacists. Yet they have always had their particular problems.

Now that the Society is to lose its regulatory duties is it not possible to cast off the shackles of the Jenkin judgment and create such a section, which could take an active role in improving the basic welfare of its members, including the salaries and conditions of those who have no other representative body?

Failing this I can see the new Society, or whatever it is to be called, falling into obscurity through lack of numbers and income.

The only alternative put forward, so far, seems to be a forum for specialist groups, but would that body provide enough backing to organise events such as the British Pharmaceutical Conference, or even to maintain a local branch structure, or to keep its educational requirements up to date, if the largest group of pharmacists were not included?

Without a forceful body to represent them, employee pharmacists face the probability that the standard community pharmacy will become merely a department of a superstore without necessarily the presence of a pharmacist. Their position, pay, prospects and prestige will be dictated by international financiers who are beyond their control.

Whatever course is chosen, the Society will need to display some great incentive to attract voluntary subscribers in place of the present mandatory membership.

My conclusions, therefore, are as follows:

• There is a need for a vigorous representative organisation of employee pharmacists to counterbalance the influence of commercial interests

• That organisation should be part of, or at least sponsored and supported by, the Society, to encourage membership of both

• The new Society should comprise, in addition to full members, associate bodies whose members are all pharmacists (efforts should be made to institute a joint-membership system whereby a single fee would cover membership of that body and of the Society) and associate bodies with pharmaceutical interest but which include non-pharmacists (membership of such a body would not of itself confer individual membership of the Society)

T. E. Searle
Polegate, East Sussex

Society should be wound up and its assets distributed

From Mr J. B. Paige, MRPharmS

Recent comments by President Hemant Patel and Chief Executive Jeremy Holmes do not persuade me that the Royal Pharmaceutical Leopard has changed its spots. In fact, the use of three words in the Society’s submission to the Clarke Inquiry convince me that it is not fit to practise in the 21st century.

Those three words are “pharmacy”, “profession” and “leadership”.

Pharmacy Pharmacy is not an entity. It is a collection of disparate activities that share only the need for a common qualification to practise them. Pharmacists employed in each of these activities have different needs, problems and ambitions that cannot necessarily be promoted or supported successfully by a monolithic body.

Profession To plagiarise one of Margaret Thatcher’s most famous quotes: “There is no such thing as a profession, only individuals carrying out similar activities.” There are tens of thousands of pharmacists and they need a body (or bodies) that can speak on behalf of all of them and stand up to those organisations, be they government departments or large companies, that seek to exploit their skills inappropriately or unfairly.

The “profession” does not pay to be a member of the Society but those thousands of pharmacists do.

Leadership Pharmacists do not need any more leaders. They are already being told what to do and how to do it by a myriad of bodies and officials. What they need is strong representation so that they may eventually be paid a fair rate to use their skills and knowledge to carry out duties that satisfy their own ambitions and the needs of the public.

The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Dental Association do not “lead” their members; they fight on their behalf and they are not afraid to get bloodied in the battle.

The time has surely come when serious consideration should be given to the idea that the Society should be wound up and its assets distributed among those bodies that have the will and the energy to offer pharmacists the support they need.

Barrie Paige
Guernsey, Channel Islands

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (New professional body)
Next Topic (Community pharmacy)