| • New professional body (2)
• Council election (2)
• Trimethoprim
• Restricted title
• Addiction
• Medicines use reviews
• English Pharmacy Board
• Epilepsy
• Euthanasia
• Public relations
• The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Council election
He who pays the piper calls the tune
From Mr N. Baumber, FRPharmS
You reported (PJ, 3 May 2008, p528) that Tricia Kennerley,
Boots’s
healthcare director, encouraged Boots pharmacists to vote
for the two Boots candidates standing in this year’s Royal Pharmaceutical Society
elections to “help maintain the company’s key objective of
being highly influential externally”. I see that Boots now chairs
the National Pharmacy Association.
While her statement confirms my suspicions about the intended fate of
the Society it completely undermines the reassurances offered by Steve
Churton in his recent
letter (PJ, 19 April 2008, p471).
He wrote: “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.” Is that so?
The nub of the issue is this: the new professional body that succeeds the
Society may not be able to represent members’ interests if membership
is voluntary and its survival is dependent on whether or not a large organisation
is prepared
to pay several
thousand membership fees for its staff.
I am sure that those of us who want to support the Society into the future
want it to represent pharmacists’ interests and not those of other organisations.
This is of prime importance, not just at the outset in deciding the role of
the new body, but also through the subsequent threat of withdrawal of funding
which would be an ongoing anxiety contingent upon the “right” policies
being adopted.
Moreover, a conflict of interest could arise between independence of mind
and company policy. Would that result in abstentions, resignations or firm
leadership
by courtesy of Alliance Boots?
The Society elections are over for this year but we should have known where
each candidate stood on such issues as the following:
• Technicians having full membership of the future professional body
(as recommended by the Clarke report)
• Remote supervision of a pharmacy (where the pharmacist is not present)
• Plans for pharmacies to be run for up to three hours with no pharmacist on
the premises
• Whether or not companies should be allowed to subscribe on behalf of their
members of staff allowing them to claim a political interest, or even to seek
a volume discount
Noel Baumber
Grantham, Lincolnshire
Boots objective to be highly influential externally
From A Boots Pharmacist
I do not know whether Peter
Walker has ever pondered upon the fact that
not all Boots pharmacists are members of the Boots Pharmacists’ Association
(PJ, 26 April 2008, p506). Perhaps I, as an employee pharmacist
of Boots UK, can offer some insight.
Mr Walker asks where is the evidence that Boots employees have used their commercial
connections with Boots to influence the profession unduly? I do not have any
evidence to offer, but I have read the statement posted by Tricia Kennerley
(healthcare director, Boots UK) on Boots MyStoreNet on 25 April 2008.
In it, she states: “Two of our colleagues at Boots UK are standing for
election to positions at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. By voting for them
you could help maintain the company’s key objective of being highly influential
externally.” Ms Kennerley then goes on to “urge” us all to
give them both “our support” and “vote for Jonathan”.
My reason for not being a member of the Boots Pharmacists’ Association
is that I have long held the belief that the relationship with Boots is too
cosy. Here is yet another example of a senior member of the Boots Pharmacists’ Association
either exhibiting a degree of naivety that ill becomes someone purporting to
represent the interests of Boots employee pharmacists or someone who is unwilling
to face up to the facts that Boots UK has a strategic objective of being highly
influential externally and that the company believes that this can be maintained
by electing its employees to positions on the Society’s Council and the
English Pharmacy Board.
A Boots Pharmacist
298/6 |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal