| • Society elections (2)
• Devolution
• Medication errors
• Children's medicines
• The new contract
• Community pharmacy
• Patient safety
• responsible pharmacist
• CPPE
• Education
• The Society (4)
• Pharmacy in the media
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Visit HQ on Open Day
From Mr J. Holmes
Following the success of last year’s Open Day in September, we
have arranged another opportunity for members to visit us at our Lambeth
headquarters on Sunday 20 April 2008.
I would encourage members to use this opportunity to discover more about what
the Society does for them and how it works to support the profession. I will
be available on the day, along with directors from the Society’s executive
team, to talk with and answer questions.
Council and English Pharmacy Board
members will be attending, allowing members to find out more about the work
they do on behalf of the profession. Senior staff will also be on hand manning
various display stands so that they can discuss the work they do and the
services they provide.
A discussion on current and future services of a professional body will allow
members to have their say about changes that will affect the future of pharmacy.
The day will also feature tours of the Society museum and library and, for
those with sea legs, end with a Thames boat trip.
Admission is free by pre-booked ticket and members are advised to book early.
To request an application form, e-mail b&ra@rpsgb.org or
telephone 020 7572 2476.
We open our doors to members and families from 10.15am to 2.30pm. I look
forward to welcoming members on the day. Jeremy Holmes
Chief Executive & Registrar
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
The way forward
From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS
David McNaughton (PJ, 1 March 2008, p246) commented on the
future funding and expenditure of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, should
it
continue
to exist. The
Treasurer’s reply may have overlooked some points
on property ownership and valuation.
We do not own the Scottish Headquarters at 36 York Place, a building bought
and converted in 1884, the ownership later being transferred to the Benevolent
Fund together with ownership of number 38, and part of number 34, York Place.
We are but tenants.
The Disability Discrimination Act renders the elegant, Adam designed, listed
building unsuitable for public use. One can get a sedan chair into the entrance
hall but not a wheel chair. Unsuccessful soundings were taken years ago on
the possibility of installing lifts and there is no reason to think that local
authority attitude has changed.
The Benevolent Fund could follow the example
of some of the regimental and services clubs in Edinburgh whose falling memberships
have led to the sale and refurbishment of premises as swanky “New Town” town
houses.
Any Society that exists after the formation of the Pharmaceutical General
Council will need much smaller accommodation for a much lower staffing level.
I too
have written and spoken several times over recent years about the value of
1 Lambeth High Street and its future disposal, with little definitive response.
We
bought and cleared the site, commissioned architecture, constructed and
furnished it for some £6m. We now seem to have a property currently worth
around £11 million. Can we really have stewardship of the only commercial
property in London, whose value increases by around a miniscule 1 per cent
per annum? This ignores the extensive (and expensive) refurbishment that
has been ongoing for the past 10 years.
David McNaughton rightly questioned the personnel needs of a voluntarily
funded, voluntary membership Society. If our Society reverts to the pre-1932
model
it would be responsible for the culture of pharmacy, namely the library
and the museum.
It would also embrace the science of pharmacy in all its
guises
and this requires the continuing presence of a chief scientist encouraging
research in schools of pharmacy and driving pharmacy legislation. It
would continue to require the expertise to participate in the co-production
of
the BNF and to offer guidance on the ethics and nature of our profession.
Our publications arm, which we would dispose of at our peril, continues
to enjoy international status and aggressive publicity can only make
it more
profitable.
Pharmaceutical continuing education may have been largely filched by
the NHS in the practice field, but there remain specialist markets to
cater
for. Conferences
make money for other professional bodies, so why not for us?
Soon the Jenkins judgment of almost a century ago will be largely irrelevant,
so the Society could become a negotiator on behalf of its mainly employee
membership as well as seeking to profit by starting up or buying into
a financial services
and insurance arm.
To go back to Dr McNaughton’s letter and Mary
Jobling’s questions
on the same page, these suggestions would leave a credible, functioning Society
with the prospect of it being able to fund a lot of its activities.
This could be achieved with a much reduced staffing level, a significant
rental income or sale of assets from 1 Lambeth High Street, together
with more than £0.5m
from the sale of the president’s flat.
Relocation from Central London
would further reduce running costs since there are other cheaper and
accessible locations throughout the UK.
As for the four constituent countries of the UK, a federal structure
with reduced staff and premises combined with a UK format offers the
prospect
of strength
combined with relevant legislative input.
There can be little doubt that the denizens of Whitehall will try to
confiscate Society assets to which we alone, the members, have contributed.
It is
politicians and civil servants who will have chosen to create any redundancies
and they
must bear any costs, not us.
Similarly, it is the Government that must
shoulder the future pension responsibilities for staff who are transferred
to the
GPhC as well as any made redundant. Ian Caldwell
Past President and Former Honorary Auditor
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Happier days
From Mr J. E. Balmford, FRPharmS
I have thought long and hard about whether I wish to continue my membership
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, after almost 55 years on the Register,
during which time I have served our Society in many ways: branch secretary,
branch chairman, member of Council, vice-president, president and honorary
auditor.
The way the Society has degenerated over the past 10 years means I can no longer
recognise it as the body I proudly joined in 1953.
When I was first elected to the Council in 1963, all the senior members of
staff, with the exception of Frank Penson (head of finance), were pharmacists.
The Council had a far greater say in the running of the Society. We determined
the salaries of senior staff, would visit beneficiaries of the Benevolent Fund
and even consider some of the display advertisements to be accepted by The
Pharmaceutical Journal. The organisation was a happier place and more cohesive
place as a result.
In those days members of Council served for the love of their profession and
the honour of being elected to Council. Travel expenses and overnight costs
were reimbursed, but there were no attendance fees and only modest locum fees
paid.
The Privy Council appointed three members of Council, who were outstanding
people in their field and brought a great deal of expertise to meetings. Now
there are 12 non-pharmacists, including two technicians, many of whom do not
have such depth of knowledge.
The Society is now mainly run by non-pharmacists who have been given fancy
titles and are paid substantial salaries and appear to have little regard to
our history and past achievements.
The PJ has become a shadow of its former self, since a non-pharmacist was appointed
as editor. Indeed the Secretary and Registrar, sorry, Chief Executive and Registrar,
have felt it necessary to start editing a monthly newsletter, in colour and
on expensive paper, at a time when the head of finance says we are very short
of money.
On the index page of the PJ it states that “it is the official organ
of the Society”, but over the past few years the Society news has been
pushed to the back of The Journal. Now Mr Holmes says that Your Society is
designed to keep members abreast of developments. Our previous excellent editors
must be turning in their graves.
A good example of this deterioration is the lack of a suitable tribute to our
most senior past president, Herbert
Grainger, whose death was reported in the
PJ of 15 March 2008 (p321) in just under half a column. Previously,
when someone died who had contributed so much to our profession, it would have
warranted
a full page with a photograph. I suggest the editor looks back to a happier
time and learns.
I believe that the running of our Society can, in the long run, only get better,
I have, therefore, decided to continue my membership to the end of this year
and hope and pray that eventually a new Society will be one of which we will
want to be members.
John E. Balmford
Past President,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
| |
Mr Balmford may be interested to know that there are no budget
implication arising from production of Your Society, the costs
of which are absorbed by
The Pharmaceutical Journal.
— EDITOR
|
Not much to shout about
From Ms H. Dunlay
Last summer I took out insurance with the Pharmacists
Defence Association to cover me while I undertook a few weeks’ locum duties at the
hospital where I had worked for 35 years until I retired.
When I informed PDA I would not require further insurance as I intended to
retire from the Register, I received an exceptionally pleasant reply, along
with a large cheque for the unused part of the year, wishing me a healthy retirement,
and with appreciation for my contribution to the profession.
When I sent my resignation to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society after 46 years
on the Register, I received absolutely nothing, not even an acknowledgement
of the accompanying letter I enclosed.
I expect it arrived, however, as The Pharmaceutical Journal stopped coming
immediately.
Hazel Dunlay
Wishaw, Lanarkshire
| |
JEREMY HOLMES, Chief Executive and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, replies:
I must extend my sincere apologies to Ms Dunlay and
understand her
frustration that the Society is yet to acknowledge her retirement. The Society
has a system in place to acknowledge those members retiring from or leaving
the Register, each receiving a letter from the Society thanking them for
their time with us.
During the period 1 November to 31 December 2007 there was a system failure,
which, unfortunately, prevented us sending these acknowledgements. We have
rectified the problem and cleared the backlog of unsent letters, so Ms Dunlay
and other
members who left the Register during this period should receive their letters
very soon.
The Society greatly values the work of its members and, as well as acknowledging
those who leave the Register, we also write to those members who have been
on the register for 50, 60 and 70 years. Our branches also regularly request
long-serving
certificates to local committee members.
The Society is proud of the work of the membership and I do hope that these
letters of recognition signify the respect and appreciation that we have for
our long-serving
members. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal