How to deal with military prescriptions - Pharmaceutical Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

330 The Pharmaceutical Journal Leading article The long-awaited new professional body opens its doors on Monday. The Journal hopes that pharmacists will support the RPS wholeheartedly and be proud of an organisation that still has purpose after nearly 170 years The Society is dead: long live the RPS! After all the waiting and wondering, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society reopens for business as a professional body on Monday. If there are any readers still in doubt that it will be offering something new for pharmacists, there is a flavour of what is in store in our new monthly section Professional matters (pp337–44). The first thing that will strike readers is the line-up of the RPS top team: they are all women (although they may be joined by a man when the Assembly meets for the first time in early October and elects its officers). Since the profession is becoming increasingly feminised, some members will welcome seeing four women in charge and wonder if they will set a different tone or have a different approach from that of their predecessors. Others will believe it is irrelevant whether there are men or women in charge: it is the results that matter. The Journal has said before that the RPS now depends on its members in a way that it has not done since before 1933, when it began to regulate the profession. Correspondents might now think twice before they reach for their pens (or keyboards) and criticise their professional body. If they do not like the way it has established itself, they have had three years to influence its future and ensure that the RPS will meet their needs. And they will be better able to influence future changes now that the stumbling block of regulation has been removed. The Journal hopes that pharmacists will do far more than give the professional body the benefit of the doubt. Rather, we hope they will support it wholeheartedly and accept that many of the recent tensions between members and the old Society were a consequence of its regulatory responsibilities. So how will pharmacists judge when the professional body is a success? Will it be a question of numbers: if an overwhelming majority of pharmacists is still on its books at the beginning of 2012? Will it be the fact that pharmacists are quoted more frequently in the national media or discussed in the three parliaments? Will it be because they have found that membership has enhanced their career and professionalism? Will it be because they find that like-minded, forward-thinking pharmacists who are worth networking with tend to be members of the RPS? Will it be because any time they approach a member of RPS staff with a query, either it is answered immediately or they are directed to someone who can help? Or will it be something more nebulous: that members are simply proud to be part of an organisation that still has a purpose nearly 170 years after its creation? The Journal urges pharmacists to help the RPS find its feet — and support their own profession — by taking part in this new enterprise. EDITOR & EDITORIAL DIRECTOR Olivia Timbs Tel 020 7572 2414 DEPUTY EDITOR Graeme Smith MRPharmS Tel 020 7572 2426 EDITOR — PJ ONLINE Michael Thompson MRPharmS Tel 020 7572 2428 NEWS EDITOR Harriet Adcock MRPharmS Tel 020 7572 2415 SENIOR NEWS AND FEATURE WRITER Dawn Connelly MRPharmS Tel 020 7572 2427 NEWS AND FEATURE WRITERS Nicola Cree MRPharmS Tel 020 7572 2430 Francesca Rivers Tel 020 7572 2417 Leila Taheri MRPharmS Tel 020 7572 2423 SENIOR CONTRIBUTIONS EDITOR Lin-Nam Wang MRPharmS Learning & development Tel 020 7572 2413 CONTRIBUTIONS EDITOR Benedict Lam MRPharmS Tomorrow’s Pharmacist Tel 020 7572 2416 QUALITY SUPERVISOR — PJ ONLINE Gowan Clews Tel 020 7572 2418 PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO THE EDITOR Emma Kerby-Evans Tel 020 7572 2414 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Pauline Heslop Tel 020 7572 2422 JOURNAL OVERSIGHT BOARD Tim Albert Noel Baumber FRPharmS Niall Dickson (chairman) Anthony Smith FRPharmS Steve Wicks FRPharmS DIRECTOR OF SALES AND MARKETING Peter Goacher PROJECT MANAGER — PJ ONLINE Clare Knights ADVERTISING SALES MANAGER Stuart Thomas Tel 020 7572 2224 ADVERTISING SALES EXECUTIVE Robert Moore Tel 020 7572 2225 HEAD OF PUBLISHING SERVICES John Wilson PRODUCTION MANAGER Joanne Marks Tel 020 7572 2229 PRODUCTION ASSISTANT Tracey McNerney Tel 020 7572 2219 SALES MANAGER — SUBSCRIPTIONS Bianca Powell-Norris Tel 020 7572 2375 MANAGING DIRECTOR Robert Bolick THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL 1 Lambeth High Street, London SE1 7JN Tel editorial, 020 7572 2414 advertising, 020 7572 2222 Fax editorial, 020 7572 2504 advertising, 020 7572 2505 Email editorial, editor@pharmj.org.uk advertising, advertdept@rpsgb.org PJ ONLINE Website www.pjonline.com Tel editorial, 020 7572 2747 advertising 020 7572 2222 ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY 1 Lambeth High Street, London SE1 7JN Tel 020 7735 9141 Fax 020 7735 7629 Email enquiries@rpsgb.org Website www.rpsgb.org 25 September 2010 (Vol 285) www.pjonline.com
The Pharmaceutical Journal 331 Letters NEW PROFESSIONAL BODY An emphatic “no” From Mr R. A. Jephson, MRPharmS My answer to the Leading article “Will you let them in?” (PJ, 21/28 August 2010, p185) is an emphatic “no”. Already we have experienced an unnecessary downgrading of the pharmacy profession when, for some strange reason, technicians were admitted. Can you imagine the medical profession doing such a thing? Community pharmacists, who see and deal with patients all day long, have been led up the garden path by pharmacists (and others) who never see a patient and therefore do not appreciate the real point (in the public’s eye) of our profession — namely, the safe dispensing of prescriptions and all that it entails. Evidence of the downgrading of community pharmacists is portrayed by the fact of how few of them are elected to fellowship. The list is full of managers, industrialists, academics, etc, who, of course, may be good at their chosen career, but rarely do we see frontline pharmacists gracing the list. Another point to make against this proposal is the fact that many pharmacists, because of the new rules, believed it was necessary to leave the Register and are therefore no longer able to call themselves pharmacists for fear of misleading the public. These are pharmacists (many known to me personally) who have given long www.pjonline.com and devoted service to the profession but may now have to suffer the ignominy of nonpharmacist scientists being able to join the new professional body. What will the public make of that? Knock this idea on the head now. R. A. Jephson Swindon They do their jobs and we do ours From Mr G. A. Teal, MRPharmS You ask in the Leading Article (PJ, 21/28 August 2010, p185) “Will you let them in?” I would say emphatically “no”. The argument that we are often taught by scientific non-pharmacists is irrelevant. They do their jobs and we do ours. There seems to be no logic either in the letter by Rachel. Airley and Henry Chrystyn (ibid, p186) since making pharmaceutical scientists members is not going to make any difference to our co-operation or mutual respect. George Teal Oxford Associate membership for non-pharmacists may solve the problem From Dr H. E. C. Worthington, FRPharmS In a career involving periods in academic and industrial pharmacy, I have known and worked with a considerable number of scientists who apply their specialist training in various ways. I have the greatest respect for their often penetrating thinking and application. Nonetheless, I am at a loss to understand how it can be proposed that microbiologists, analytical chemists, medicinal chemists, pharmacologists and other specialists should be offered membership of my professional body. I hold that the training of pharmacists, with its breadth of content, creates unique professionals who alone are FROM PJ ONLINE Yes, absolutely yes! entitled to put MRPharmS after their names. The way to solve the problem is to award associate membership to non-pharmacists with the appropriate credentials. Harry E.C. Worthington Non-practising Pharmacist Beaminster, Dorset The new Royal Pharmaceutical Society is being developed as the professional body for pharmacy. Please note that it is pharmacy, not just pharmacists. Would members vote to exclude preregistration trainees and pharmacy undergraduates, who are the life-blood of our profession? I would sincerely hope not. So the concept of allowing those other than pharmacists to join is one which I believe will have wide appeal. We are a science-based profession. Have we forgotten our roots and our proud scientific heritage? Without pharmaceutical scientists, we would not have a trusted and respected profession at all. We would not have the wide range of effective therapeutic agents that we have at our disposal if it were not for the enormous efforts of those working in the pharmaceutical industry, many of whom would fall within the definition of pharmaceutical scientist. Were it not for the many non-pharmacist academics imparting their skills and knowledge to those young aspiring pharmacists in our universities, we could not produce the future members of our profession. It is, of course, perfectly true to suggest that pharmaceutical scientists may want something slightly different than pharmacist members from our professional body, and the same could be said of pharmacy undergraduates and preregistration trainees. So should we also exclude these categories on the basis of this argument? It is also perfectly true that some pharmaceutical scientists would choose not to join even if they were given the opportunity, but we should at least invite them in. If members take the decision to include pharmaceutical scientists in due course, they will have a different category of membership than pharmacists. Surely, this is reasonable. What are some people concerned about? I believe that we should be creating a body akin to a royal college, which recognises and embraces all of those with whom we have an inseparable affinity, rather than an exclusive and self-indulgent club for the sole benefit of pharmacists. When will we recognise that we cannot operate in isolation? When will we realise that there is strength in diversity? Steve Churton, President, Royal Pharmaceutical Society (in his own opinion) (Vol 285) 25 September 2010 www.pjonline.com
Page 1 and 2: THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL www.pjon
Page 3 and 4: The Pharmaceutical Journal 321 News
Page 5 and 6: Mixtard ® 30(insulinhuman,rDNA)wil
Page 11: The Pharmaceutical Journal 329 Noti
Page 15 and 16: The Pharmaceutical Journal 333 Lett
Page 17 and 18: The Pharmaceutical Journal 335 Lett
Page 19 and 20: Professional matters Delivering on
Page 21 and 22: The Pharmaceutical Journal 339 Prof
Page 23 and 24: The Pharmaceutical Journal 341 Prof
Page 25 and 26: What the new RPS can do for you In
Page 27 and 28: The Pharmaceutical Journal 345 Mili
Page 29 and 30: The Pharmaceutical Journal 347 Supe
Page 31 and 32: The Pharmaceutical Journal 349 Land
Page 33 and 34: The Pharmaceutical Journal 351 Regi
Page 35 and 36: The Pharmaceutical Journal 353 The
Page 37 and 38: Careers To place an advertisement T
Page 39 and 40: PLUS The Pharmaceutical Journal 357
Page 41 and 42: The Pharmaceutical Journal 359 Care
Page 43: A MethaMeasure DOUBLE pump - for di

How to deal with military prescriptions - Pharmaceutical Press

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?