| • Category M medicines
• Community pharmacy (3)
• Primary care contracts
• 100-hour pharmacies
• PCT commissioning
• Prescription charges
• Medicines use reviews
• Dispensing
• Minor ailment scheme
• Adverse drug reactions
• Asthma management (2)
• Non-practising status
• The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Non-practising status
Title should reflect our professional status
From Mr D. R. Kent, MRPharmS
The declaration for non-practising status was recently amended to read “…or
give any advice whilst acting in the capacity of or holding myself out
as a pharmacist”. This amendment does not go far enough and should
be further amended to read “…or give any advice whilst acting
in the capacity of or holding myself out as a practising pharmacist”.
I am a pharmacist by degree and a practising pharmacist by virtue of registration.
I do not believe a professional qualification can be expunged by failure to
pay a fee to a registration body.
The question of continuing professional development is a red herring. In my
capacity as chief executive officer of a local pharmaceutical committee my
CPD commitment can be more than adequately fulfilled by my non-clinical activities.
So long as a pharmacist makes it clear that he or she is not registered, any
information and advice given can be considered in that light by the recipient.
I am a member of the Royal Society; but should I cease to be I will still be
proud to call myself a pharmacist, but will make it clear, when appropriate,
that I am no longer registered. I already inform, when necessary, that I am
largely desk-bound.
I am aware that the title “pharmacist” is restricted; perhaps now
is the time to amend the restricted title to “Registered pharmacist” for
those registered with the Society and the title “Pharmacist” for
those with an appropriate degree and training.
If we do not value our qualification, education and training why should we
expect others to?
David Kent
Hadley Wood,
Hertfordshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal