The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7488 p149
9 February 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• Clarke Inquiry (2)
• Minor ailment scheme
• EHC
• WCPPE (2)
• Dispensing
• Community pharmacy
• PSNC
• Drug addiction
• The Society (2)

Letters to the Editor

Clarke Inquiry

Late reflections still being accepted

From Mr N. Clarke

As you know, the formal date for the end of the consultation phase of the of the inquiry into a future professional body for pharmacy passed on 31 January 2008.

The inquiry has received a host of responses to the consultation, which we are now digesting; we have been grateful to all those who have taken such time and trouble to consider the wide range of issues that have arisen.

Although the consultation date may have passed, the inquiry is happy to continue to receive any later reflections that pharmacists may have. The website remains open and, as there have been a considerable number of submissions in the final week, pharmacists may want to review some of these and add additional comments. These will all be considered.

The range of formal evidence sessions has also now been completed, as have the public meetings. Although there has been some comment in the pages of the PJ about the levels of attendance at these, the inquiry team has found that the debate at all these meetings has been carefully considered and of a high quality, and has been helpful as we consider the responses.

Nigel Clarke
Chairman
The Clarke Inquiry
53 Chandos Place,
London WC2N 4HS

Finding a place for retired pharmacists

From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS

I am one of that large majority who neither gave written evidence nor attended one of the meetings organised by the Clarke Inquiry. This does not mean that I have no interest in the future of the profession to which I have belonged for nearly 60 years but from which I have now retired.

However, there will be many like me — retired but on the non-practising Register — who will wonder if and where they will fit into the proposed new professional body.

I was, therefore, interested in the statement on p7 of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s submission to the inquiry which reads: “There is a strong case for expanding the membership to cover pharmacists who have retired from the Register.” I agree. It is appreciated that they are no longer active in the practice of the profession.

However many are still involved at local branch and regional level and their input, both locally and nationally, is valued and recognised. This significant minority could well be excluded from the new professional body. It is to be hoped that this is not the case and that a place will be found for them and a means by which they could still be involved.

Bill Brookes
Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Minor ailment scheme)