The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7498 p471
19 April 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• The Society
• Council election (3)
• White paper (2)
• Professional body
• Combivent discontinuation
• Community pharmacy
• Medicines use reviews
• Controlled Drugs
• Workload
• Extended services
• Libraries
• Registration

Letters to the Editor

Council election

Where will candidates’ loyalties lie?

From Mr J. D. Khan, MRPharmS

It is possible that, from June, Boots will have two of its pharmacists on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council and two more on the English Pharmacy Board. If elected, Nanette Kerr will replace Jonathan Buisson on the Council, joining her Boots colleague Steve Churton. Mr Buisson is standing for election to the English Pharmacy Board, which is already chaired by Boots pharmacist Paul Bennett.

In many ways this could be seen as good news, as they are all senior people in the Boots organisation and, undoubtedly, highly competent. However, Boots is no longer a publicly quoted company. It is now owned by the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co (KKR).

So when push comes to shove, where will the Boots election candidates’ loyalties lie: with the profession or with the company that pays their wages? It seems doubtful that the interests of individual pharmacists top the list of concerns for KKR investors.

So what is the stance of these Boots candidates on issues such as remote supervision (the plan to run pharmacies in the absence of a pharmacist) and skill mix? Would professionalism hold sway over KKR profits?

The Boots candidates are, no doubt, counting on the votes of the thousands of pharmacists whom Boots employs, but it is imperative that voters consider where their interests lie when placing “X” on the election ballot paper.

Jahn Dad Khan
Rochdale, Lancashire

Dedicated to serve the membership

From Mr S. J. Churton, MPharmS

I was interested to read the question raised by Noel Baumber (PJ, 12 April 2008, p438) about the possibility of undue political influence being exerted by those of us who are employed by Boots, and who are either currently serving, or hope to serve, on the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council or the English Pharmacy Board.

I am sure my colleagues would agree with me when I say that we are grateful for the support that our employer affords us, which enables us to take an active part in supporting the profession and its future, but we are conscious that we were, or hope to be, elected by the membership, and as such are dedicated to serve in the best interests of the membership.

While it is perfectly reasonable for Mr Baumber to point to consolidation within the community pharmacy and wholesale sectors, I suggest that he should not confuse this with our personal integrity and sense of responsibility, first and foremost to the profession and its members.

Steve Churton
Head of Professional Practice, Boots
Member of Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council

Views of employees frequently overlooked

From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS

Noel Baumber (PJ, 12 April 2008, p438) has expressed concerns that if two of the Alliance Boots head office candidates are successful in the forthcoming Royal Pharmaceutical Society elections, that will result in two of its senior staff occupying Council seats and two of its senior staff occupying English Board seats. He considers that if this occurs, then this might give Boots undue political influence.

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association has always contended that a disproportionate influence is wielded within the profession by a very small number of large employer organisations and that the views of employees and locum pharmacists are frequently overlooked.

The aim of the PDA, some of whose members are standing in the elections, has always been to address this imbalance and to ensure that the individual pharmacist agenda can be properly represented.

We encourage all pharmacists to cast their vote and ask that they should also consider candidates who, while not necessarily having the backing and support of an employer organisation, will nevertheless have a broad appreciation and sympathy for important professional issues as seen through the eyes of the individual employee and locum pharmacist.

Mark Koziol
Chairman
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association
Birmingham

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The Society)
Next Topic (White Paper)