| • 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
|
Registration
The extent of the non-practising declaration
From Dr J. E. Rees, FRPharmS
I refer to the declaration that must be made by a pharmacist when he
or she is applying to be retained in the non-practising section of the
Register. Some members, having declared themselves to be non-practising,
are asked subsequently to provide advice or expert opinion, or are invited
to deliver a lecture or seminar. They then have to decide whether they
need to apply to transfer back to the practising section of the Register,
and pay the appropriate fee. This may not be necessary.
According to the wording of the declaration, a non-practising member cannot
hold himself out to be a pharmacist. But what is to prevent him from describing
himself as a pharmaceutical scientist, if the opinion he provides or the presentation
he gives is based on his scientific knowledge and expertise, and the work does
not directly involve the
provision of advice relating to patient care?
Furthermore, the declaration specifically relates to work undertaken and advice
given in Great Britain, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. For those members
whose professional contacts extend further afield, the limited geographical
scope of the declaration could be relevant. There seems to be nothing to preclude
a non-practising signatory from undertaking work or giving advice elsewhere — although
the European Union may present a special case.
Outside the specified geographical
boundaries, the member could describe himself as a pharmacist and would apparently
be entitled to discuss any aspect of pharmacy within his sphere of competence.
Clearly, ethical considerations would need to be addressed.
A non-practising member could presumably offer his professional services
in healthcare in, say, a developing country. He might then face an ethical
dilemma
as to whether he should do so while holding himself out as a pharmacist.
Surely he would be justified in presenting himself in that capacity. It would
give
him
the necessary credibility and
authority to provide pharmaceutical services in that situation.
Whether any of these matters could be open to legal or ethical challenge
is not certain. However, undoubtedly, such issues would pale into insignificance
if the current, ill-conceived proposals
are implemented, empowering people without professional qualifications to
work as pharmacists during a national
emergency in this country (PJ, 1 March 2008,
p237). John E. Rees
Ickford, Buckinghamshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal