| • Trimethoprim (2)
• Personalised service
• Shambolic procedures
• White Paper
• Workload
• Patents and generics
• Learning@lunch
• Minority languages
• Domain names
• Public relations (2)
• New professional body (2)
• The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
New professional body
This change is not just about rebadging
From Mr R. A. Cattell, MRPharmS
It is clear that pharmacy has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure
a professional leadership body that will be all that we hope for. The
Clarke Inquiry gives us hope that, generally, the profession is clear
that it wants this new body to be competent, representative of the individual,
vocal and to operate to the highest corporate governance standards.
Central to the creation of this new professional leadership body must be the
full involvement of the current organisations in the profession. The members
of those organisations will justifiably expect their representatives to deliver
the required vision and leadership at this time of great change.
The Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists agrees with Nigel Clarke’s report
that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has an important role to play in facilitating
the creation of a transitional committee and supporting structures for the
new body, but it must not simply be a rebadging of the old one.
It will be
vital that this process includes those inside and outside the profession
who understand all the profession has to offer and who have the skills
(and political
nous) to deliver a new organisation in around 18 months, and who will ensure
the process is transparent and keep the individual member at the fore.
To this end, I urge all pharmacists and technicians to use their votes in
the current Society elections, and vote for those candidates who will make
the
Council deliver on the agenda set by Clarke and demanded by the profession.
If we fail to use our vote we will be left with what we currently have; a
vacuum of profession leadership part filled by myriad smaller groups. Richard Cattell
President
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
What value will new body offer?
From Mr C. D. Pilkington, MRPharmS
I have just taken part in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s survey
on its new role. I am not terribly politically inclined and perhaps I
have missed a significant discussion that explained it to me but I am
unsure what is left once the regulatory function is removed.
The survey mentions a number of key functions that the new body could serve
and asks me to rank their importance. At first glance the list does contain
some important functions, such as the provision of clinical and legal advice,
help with continuing professional development and the supply of discounted
insurance and services.
I started to rank them all as high importance and then realised something.
They are of high importance to me but I do not currently get them through the
Society. The National Pharmacy Association? Yes. The Pharmacists’ Defence
Association? Yes. The Welsh Centre for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education?
Yes. The Society? No.
The only item on the list that I expect the Society to provide is to lobby,
on my behalf, the Government, the media and other professions. I am not convinced
that it is very good at it. The survey then goes on to ask how much I would
pay for this? I thought no more than £50.
What worries me is that the survey ends by asking if the combined fee for joining
both bodies (regulatory and professional body) were £395 would I be likely
to join? What about £495? What about £595?
Perhaps I am being unreasonable, but I do not envisage paying an extra £100–£200
pounds on top of the current fee for its representation. I realise this survey
is to canvass opinion and perhaps the Society will discuss the results, but
unless something changes I can see this shiny, new professional body representing
about 10 per cent of the workforce — unless, of course, my employer offers
to reimburse my fee…
Chris Pilkington
Llandudno,
Gwynedd |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal