| • Drug addiction (3)
• Controlled drugs
• NHS
• EHC
• Statins
• Community pharmacy (3)
• The Society (3)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Restoring a sense of proportion?
From Professor J. Wingfield, FRPharmS, and Dr G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS
We write as former inspectors of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
The
latest consultation (PJ, 9 February 2008, centre
pullout) on
which transgressions by pharmacists can be resolved without recourse
to the
formal procedures
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (and subsequently, presumably, the
General Pharmaceutical Council) is most welcome.
In the past, the Society was able, unchallenged, to use the judgement
and common sense of its inspectorate and their bosses to “screen” out
complaints that simply did not need to go to formal discipline.
Since
around the year 2000, in an effort perhaps to be seen as a tough, incorruptible
regulator, the Society’s disciplinary machinery has lurched the
other way with nearly every complaint being treated as a potential “hanging
offence”.
While in today’s modernised health professions, transparency must
be paramount, the Council has done well at least to attempt to codify
and express some elements of what were formerly considered to be common
sense. This is a difficult task.
Pharmacists, especially those in community
practice upon whom the Society’s disciplinary activity bears almost
exclusively (and, some might say, unfairly), should try to contribute
their views to this important consultation.
Joy Wingfield
Nottingham
Gordon Appelbe
London
Changing from non-practising to practising status
From Mr P. O’Sullivan, MRPharmS
When renewing our registration with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
we now have the choice of whether to be practising or non-practising
pharmacists.
Some of the most experienced pharmacists in our branch have
considered opting for non-practising status. This is often a difficult
decision for an individual to make, if there is a possibility that
they might want to practise again in the future.
Unfortunately there does not seem to be any published guidance on how
to move back on to the practising Register, something that would be
of great help when making the decision to give up practising status.
Patrick O’Sullivan
West Metropolitan Branch
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
| |
ANDREW GARDNER, head of registration at the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:
I understand that some members
may think there
is insufficient
information to enable them to make an informed decision about moving
between the practising and non-practising parts of the Register. This
is consequently something the Society will review.
Returning to the practising part of the Register from the non-practising
part requires the submission of an application to change status (PDF 120K)
or from the registration division) plus payment of the upgrade fee (the
difference between the retention
fee paid and the practising retention fee).
Additional return-to-practice requirements
may be introduced in the future. It was our intention to consult on rules in
relation to this in 2008, but the Department of Health announced in December
2007 that there will be some delays in making the relevant rules for consultation.
Unfortunately, we are unable to say at this time what the requirements for
return to practice will be other than to say that they may include, for example,
the
submission of a return-to-practice plan or undertaking a short return-to-practice
course.
The Society will consult with members before introducing any such
new requirements, so please keep an eye on The Journal for
developments. |
Time for the Society be wound up
From Mr G. W. Walker, FRPharmS
Barrie Paige’s of letter (PJ, 2 February 2008, p118)
came as a breath of fresh air. I have come to the same conclusion: the
Royal
Pharmaceutical
Society has outlived its useful time-span and should wound up.
It is some 30 years since I was first elected to the Society’s
Council from my base in rural Lincolnshire. At that time the Society
was an organisation fighting for pharmacists. Remember doctor dispensing
and the Clothier Report? Remember the introduction of the green cross
symbol? Remember the battles over limitation of contract?
Whether you agree with the outcomes of those battles or not, it is naive
to believe that we were afraid of the sight of blood.
We fought for the best interests of pharmacy as a whole.
The rot set in with the PIANA (Pharmacy in a New Age) initiative, when
the Society started its Walter Mitty-like progress to the stage it has
now reached, having lost the support and confidence of its membership.
Even worse, it seems to believe that when the regulator takes over, it
can expect to retain a large proportion of its membership on a voluntary
basis.
What all pharmacists want and need is an organisation that will fight
for them and their futures against the background of a Government which
seems determined, in
spite of what Ben Bradshaw’s assertions to
the contrary, to transfer to the new regulator “any of the functions” of
the Society (ibid, p106).
This letter, regrettably, is intended to form the basis of a call for
a vote of no confidence in the Society and supports the development of
a new organisation with the objective of acting as a forceful body to
represent all pharmacists.
One only has to observe what the British Medical Association achieves
for doctors to appreciate this point. Some form of trades union is the
only viable option I can envisage.
Graham Walker
Totnes,
Devon |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal