Having just read the report of the decision (taken in secret) by the Council, I can only say that things go from bad to worse. It states:
“……… the Society will suggest that the GPhC consider maintaining a non-practising register……..”
In providing a non-practising register the Society is merely helping the DH to extract a handy subsidy for the GPhC finances from those practising their profession away from the public interface by requiring them to pay for the right to refer to themselves incorrectly as non-practising pharmacists.
“………and that it should also allow those members of the profession who are no longer registered to call themselves retired or former pharmacists”
Is the Council honestly suggesting that having retired from pharmacy practise in 2002 I am not a retired pharmacist? To put matters beyond doubt, let me inform the Council that, even though today I am returning my form indicating that I shall not be renewing my membership of the Society,
· I AM A RETIRED PHARMACIST,
· There is nothing that the Society or the DH can do to change that fact.
If the Council or to put it more precisely the GPhC Registrar would like to test this in the CRIMINAL court after 2009 when the title pharmacist becomes restricted then so be it. I hope that the new Registrar of the GPhC will have more common sense than that exhibited by Council and not waste time and money doing so.
Proposed definition for practising pharmacists
My comment is not directly on the issue of restricted title, but in the proposed new definition of practising, which is in the draft S60 Order.
It states "a person practises or undertakes work as a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician if....that person does any work or gives any advice in relation to the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale, supply or use of medicines, the science of medicines, the practice of pharmacy or the provision of healthcare"
That appears to me to be very inclusive, and not restricted to patient-facing roles.
Loss of the profession’s heritage and experience must be avoided
From Professor H. McNulty, FRPharmS
The Institute of Pharmacy Management Council, its president and vice-presidents wish to support the principles behind the Broad spectrum of John Rees (PJ, 21 February 2009, p185) and others in recent weeks.
The IPM council believes the issue of future protected titles for those called pharmacists currently has been inadequately debated both by the profession and in the Pharmacy Order consultation. This has serious consequences for the profession’s future.
The title “pharmacist” has been recognised for over a century by the public and accepted with trust; and it belongs to members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society who adhere to the codes of ethics and conduct, and should still have to do so after separation. These prevent them from practising unless competent.
The regulator should not be able to strip the Society’s members of their title and the Society must take this opportunity to demonstrate its new leadership role by standing up to any moves to lose it, and any other assets threatened by the Order. For the Society to allow this to happen will undermine the new professional body before it is established.
Pharmacy-produced labels must be accurate and so must the new labels for members of each new body. New protected terms must be designed for “members” of the regulatory body, such as “registered” or “licensed” pharmacists and technicians.
A consequence of failure could be that many older members may refuse to accept the new Charter if they are to have their title taken away. Their loss will impact on the need to ensure that a majority of pharmacists will join the new body and lead to a significant loss of the profession’s heritage and experience. This must be avoided in the public interest.
Howard McNulty
General Secretary
Institute of Pharmacy Management
Have the views of retired members been listened to?
From Mr D. L. Coleman
I read with increasing despair about the frustration of non-practising and retired pharmacists when it is suggested that they will no longer be able to call themselves pharmacists.
Surely, a clear statement from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should be made at once that the hard-earned title cannot be taken away.
I accept, of course, that the title might be qualified, for example, retired pharmacist or registered pharmacist, etc, but to suggest that I cannot describe myself as a retired pharmacist seems absurd.
I retired from the Register voluntarily because I could not sign a declaration that I would not give healthcare advice since I serve on a county council committee. There I represent “health interests”.
Some months back I contacted the Transitional Committee asking that the views of retired members (some of whom might wish to rejoin the new professional body) should be taken into account. I was assured that such views would be listened to. I wonder — have they been?
There is a large body of pharmacists out there who have supported the profession over the years and now work in different roles in their communities. It seems madness to me to even suggest that such people should no longer think of themselves as retired pharmacists.
David L. Coleman
Past President
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Those unwilling to support should identify themselves
From W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS
John Rees is to be congratulated on his excellent Broad spectrum (PJ, 21 February 2009, p185) on the retention of the title “pharmacist”.
I hope that all Council members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and members of the Pharmacy Regulation and Leadership Oversight Group will read it and give their backing to the right of those longstanding retired members of the profession, such as myself, to continue to call themselves pharmacists.
It would be helpful if those Council and PRLOG members who are not prepared to support this would identify themselves and give their reasons for such a stance.
Bill Brookes
Stoke On Trent, Staffordshire
Revelation of occupation may lead to prison sentence
From Mr N. T. Fitt, MRPharmS
Before attending a recent outpatient appointment, I had to complete a form. One section was headed “occupation” (if retired, please state previous occupation). I duly wrote “retired pharmacist”.
When the new regulation is introduced, this will not be possible. After considerable thought, I have devised the following wording: “I am retired but revealing my previous occupation could lead to a prison sentence.”
Hospital staff will conclude that I am a former member of the intelligence services. I will have to use the same wording with any organisations that approach me asking for personal information.
Norman Fitt
Manchester
Problem solved
From Mr G. S. Raivid, MRPharmS
As a retired pharmacist with over 50 years on the Register, I was delighted to read the letter from Gordon Appelbe (PJ, 21 February 2009, p186).
He has solved the problem of what to call myself once the new register is in action and I cannot use the title “pharmacist”. He states that “doctor” is not a restricted title and so I will be Dr Raivid once the new register is up and running. This should provide me with enough status.
Godfrey Raivid
London
Distracted attention
From Dr C. T. Gallagher, MRPharmS
Once again, pharmacists have had their attention distracted from what should be important by sleight of hand on the part of their professional body, this time in the form of post-nominals and their importance.
Those entering the medical profession, for example, do not gain an automatic post-nominal on qualification and, it would seem, do not feel victimised because of this. Presumably, because medical graduates are already awarded post-nominals by their alma mater (MB ChB, MD, etc), which are not awarded to other graduates, they feel no need to have a further identifier of their registered status.
Medical practitioners desiring additional letters after their names may undertake a course of postgraduate study with a university or royal college. But is this not also true of pharmacists? I cannot think of any other graduates who are entitled to use BSc (Pharm), BPharm or MPharm, and there are many opportunities for postgraduate study at university or through the College of Pharmacy Practice.
Like pharmacists in Australia or New Zealand, and most other healthcare professionals in the UK, can we not be satisfied with that? As long as the public are satisfied that the person dispensing their medicines or offering advice is a pharmacist, there is no need for additional glitter on the end of that person’s name.
I appreciate that I am writing this letter in a country where people seem to be prepared to pay £1.5m for a life-peerage or similar nod from Her Majesty, but we must ask ourselves what actual value such “qualifications” bring.
Perhaps it is time the profession desisted in its narcissism and begins to concentrate more on the quality of representation that the new professional body will provide.
Cathal Gallagher
St Albans, Hertfordshire
Protecting the public
It is right and proper that the public are protected and that only those with approprate qualifcations can practice as pharmacists .
But for some pharmacists registration with the GPhC may not be legally necessary - but they may still want to be memebers of the new PB. Are they to be denied the right to call themselves 'pharmacists'?
I beleive the title must be protected - but I think the definition needs some flexibility
Sally A Haynes
News from Council, Royal Pharmaceutical Society (3 March)
Council members decide not to argue for changing title restrictions
The Council would appear to
The Council would appear to have disenfranchised several significant (role, not numbers!) secotrs of the profession.
Industrial Pharmacists, those in Academia, and those who work for the MHRA will no longer be able to call themselves 'Pharmacists'.
It would seem that the Council is not listening to the membership, or not reading the letters or the excellent article by John Rees in the PJ.