Letter received from Helen Gordon, Chief Exec, Royal Pharmaceutical Society

[DavidS]

These are exciting times for pharmacy and a time of huge change for the profession.

Why?

Because in a few weeks time a new regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council, and a dedicated professional body, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, will both be established.

While these changes have received a good amount of publicity, many pharmacists have told us that they are still unclear about the changes and what it means for them.

We, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and General Pharmaceutical Council, have been working together to make sure that the transition from the current Society to two new organisations is as smooth as possible for all concerned. Importantly, we want to make sure everyone understands what is happening and when.

Over the next few weeks you will be receiving a number of communications from both new organisations. So you understand what you will be getting and when, the table below shows each piece of communication you will be receiving and the important information it contains.

Please look out for them.

If you have any questions about professional body communications, you can contact our dedicated support team on 020 7572 2302 or email them at support@rpsgb.org.
If you have any questions about regulator communications, you can call the GPhC helpline on 0845 504 6277
Yours sincerely,




Helen Gordon
Chief Executive
Royal Pharmaceutical Society





Duncan Rudkin
Chief Executive
General Pharmaceutical Council

[shan]

Well David, I have received it too. What is your take on this letter. I still wonder if we still need to register with the RPS ????

Shan

[Pharmanaut]

Well David, I have received it too. What is your take on this letter. I still wonder if we still need to register with the RPS ????

Shan

No you don't need to register with the RPS once you have been transferred to the GPhC, although how you will access CPD might be an issue.

Hope our colleague Mark Koziol at the PDA is ramping up to fill these gaps.
Next year will probably see a mass exodus from the RPS - unless they reach out to the rank and file PDQ, and shake up their views on remote logging in for RP, remote dispensing and the whole supervision thing. I could go on but it gives me bad karma.

[DavidS]

Well David, I have received it too. What is your take on this letter. I still wonder if we still need to register with the RPS ????

Shan

Well, Shan, I just don't know.

I did say that when they decided a charter was required that gave the Privvy Council/DuH a hold over the scoiety, that I wouldn't want to join. What the Privvy Council have ever done for this profession hasn't been helpful, really.

If I'm wrong, please tell me. But the BMA doesn't have a charter, AFAIK, and they seem to be coping OK.

I am tempted to give them a year's cash and see what I get for it. On the other hand, I could wait a year, save my cash, and see what other people get out of it. Alternatively, I could regret not joining and join after 3 months - I doubt they will turn the cash away - and that would give me 3 months to see what the "tone" of the professional body will be.

Its complicated for me in that some very dedicated people are now on the various committees, and, more to the point, the timewasting DuH stooges will be out on their ear. Its a difficult decision. I'd like to give the society the benefit of the considerable doubt I have. We'll see. Ideally they would give us 6 months out of the reserves, gratis, that we have all paid for, to make up our minds.

What it comes out to, is, I just don't know.

[Gowan]

When the split happens, the next RPS fee is not due till March 2011, so you'll have 6 months to decide.

[Pharmanaut]

When the split happens, the next RPS fee is not due till March 2011, so you'll have 6 months to decide.

So we will expect a determined effort to engage the 'pharmaceutical footsoldiers' with some solid representation.
Probably their last chance to demonstrate that they taking back ownership of the profession.

Habenda ratio valentundis should be applied to the members!
(Sorry could not remember enough latin to change the tenses, but you get the idea)