|
The Journal Oversight Board (JOB) is an independent body set up to adjudicate in the case of complaints about the editorial content of The
Pharmaceutical Journal and related publications or the handling of such complaints by its editorial staff. It has investigated the following case.
The inquiry On 28 January the managing editor of The
Pharmaceutical Journal wrote to the Journal Oversight Board asking it to comment on
The Journal’s policy on publishing letters on clinical matters
from non-practising pharmacists.
The approach to the board followed a request from a correspondent, a
non-practising pharmacist, who wanted to know whether the Journal now
accepted letters on clinical topics from non-practising members, given
the declaration such members have to sign.
The Journal is of the view that it is not the role of The
Pharmaceutical Journal editors to police the practising status of its correspondents
and that this should be a matter for their own consciences. However,
given The Journal’s status as the official organ of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, the managing editor sought the board’s view on whether
the stance the editors had taken was the correct one.
Current guidance on practising status Non-practising pharmacists have
to make the following declaration to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society: “I
am applying for retention in the non-practising register and under articles
3 (2), 11 (2) and 22 (2) of the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians
Order 2007. I hereby declare that I will not undertake any work or give
any advice in relation to the dispensing or use of medicines, the practice
of pharmacy or the provision of healthcare in Great Britain, the Channel
Islands or the Isle of Man.”
The declaration was subsequently corrected as the following crucial phrase “whilst
acting in the capacity of or holding myself out as a pharmacist” had
been omitted at the end. The Society made clear that it would interpret
signed declarations as if they included this text.
The accompanying guidance issued by the Society makes it clear that the
purpose of this declaration is to protect the public by ensuring that
patients are protected from practitioners who have not undergone the
required continuing professional development and whose knowledge and
skills may be out of date.
However, it goes on to say: “Non-practising pharmacists will continue
to be subject to the code of ethics. They will also continue to have
access to resources at the Society, including receiving The Pharmaceutical
Journal, branch membership and being entitled to vote in Council elections.
They will be able to use the restricted title “pharmacist” but
will have to explain, when using it, that they are not practising.”
The guidance also makes clear that the decision on whether to offer advice
is a matter for individual professional judgement.
In addition the Pharmacists and Pharmacists Technicians Order 2007 states
that “a person practises as a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician
if, whilst acting in the capacity of or holding himself out as a pharmacist
or a pharmacy technician, he undertakes any work or gives any advice
in relation to the dispensing or use of medicines, the science of medicines,
the practice of pharmacy or the provision of health care”.
The important phrase in the guidance (and in the corrected wording of
the declaration) is “whilst acting in the capacity of or holding
himself out as a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician”. If a non-practising
pharmacist does not hold him or herself out to be a practising pharmacist
or in some way imply that that is the case then there would seem to be
no objection to them offering comment.
Where does this fit in with Journal correspondence? The correspondence
columns of any professional journal are intended to be an open forum
for discussion and debate, a place where readers can challenge the journal
and each other raising new issues as well as commenting on subjects that
have already been covered. The decision about what is and is not published
is a matter for the editor or those delegated with that task by the editor.
Decisions about whether or not to publish will be based on the content
and context of the letter and are made on a case by case basis.
Although the correspondence columns of The Pharmaceutical Journal can
in theory be read by members of the public (arguably more so since the
online version appeared) the purpose and content of The Journal and its
letters pages is perfectly clear — this is a forum for pharmacists
to talk to one another, not a vehicle for giving advice to the public.
Given that the guidance on registration status specifically says that
non-practising pharmacists should receive The Journal it is clear the
Society regards them as part of this community.
Furthermore, the wording of the status of practising pharmacists in the
2007 Order makes it clear that this is not just a question of when they
can or cannot give advice or make comments, but in what capacity they
do this. The important point here seems to be that non-practising pharmacists
should make clear that they are non-practising.
Implications for The Journal’s policy The current policy leaves
it to the judgement of the editor as to whether a letter is accepted
for publication. By implication it does not preclude any reader from
submitting a letter, nor does it impose a blanket ban on letters from
any quarter. Instead it considers each letter on its own merits.
This represents good editorial practice which is found in other professional
journals. Given the nature of the letters column and the fact that it
is a professional forum and not for the giving of advice to the public,
there does not appear to be any justification for excluding appropriate
contributions from non-practising pharmacists.
However, while the managing editor points out that it is not the job
of journal editors to police the practising status of their correspondents,
it might be helpful for The Journal, in its advice to correspondents,
to ask that non-practising pharmacists make clear their current status
on all correspondence. This would not only protect the individuals concerned
from any suggestion that they were contravening the declaration they
had signed, it would also ensure that readers were clear as to the status
of the writer.
Recommendation The Journal Oversight Board supports the view of the managing
editor of The Journal that letters from non-practising pharmacists should
be considered on their merit in the same way as all other letters are
considered. It also recommends that if the author of a letter is not
practising this fact should be included with the published letter.
Journal Oversight Board
26 February 2008 |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal