PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society
The Pharmaceutical Journal
From Mr A. J. Rogers, FRPharmS
I seem to recall that when the Royal Pharmaceutical Society embarked upon its "modernisation" programme, it took advice from the same management consultants that had recently guided Boots on its future strategy. Boots has just announced that its initiatives have not been successful, and has consulted another company on its future direction. Let us hope that our masters (no, servants) in Lambeth have the sense to admit a similar failure, and return to the drawing board.
A. J. Rogers
From Mr J. D. R. Jolley, FRPharmS
I am unable to agree with Nigel Graham's response to Mike How's letter (PJ, 16 November, p713); his statement that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's practice division devotes considerable time to the industrial pharmacist is not true. The time spent in administering applicants to the Qualified Persons' register is paid for in the ?500 application fee; the only other support is the administration of the Industrial Pharmacists Group committee, which has now been cut back to three meetings per year (requiring only a quarter a person time per year).
Even the newsletter, Industrial Pharmacist, has to be paid for now by sponsorship from industrial companies.
What is more, there is little chance of things improving since, despite considerable lobbying from the IPG committee, the Society's Council has decided to give priority to regional representation in place of representation from the major sectors of pharmacy. Even pharmacy technicians will have representation in the new Council structure.
This is a clear message from our Society that there is no intention to give support to the industrial pharmacist, and we should all consider what value do we get from our annual retention fee.
Send your letter to The Editor
Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal URI: 20008268
Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press