Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

PJ Online | PJ Letters: The Society

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

Return to PJ Online Home Page

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7226 p783
30 November 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

   

PDF* 75K

Letters

  Smoking cessation
  Community pharmacy
  Mental health
  Remuneration
  Patient information
  Drug tariff
  Medicines in use
  Cannabis
  Food safety
  Alzheimer's disease
  The Society
  Onlooker


Letters to the Editor

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

The Society

Back to the drawing board?

Do industrial pharmacists get value for their retention fees?

Back to the drawing board?

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
Ewell Village, Surrey


Do industrial pharmacists get value for their retention fees?

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.

John Jolley
Norwich

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Alzheimer's disease)
Next Topic (Onlooker)

Back to Top

Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs  Classifieds | Site Map | Contact us

©The Pharmaceutical Journal

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal URI: 20008268

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Rate
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.