Editor's comment: Royal College faces baptism of fire

In Opinion

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

Are pharmacists the only professionals who seem to be perpetually at odds with their professional body?

Back in the mists of time (well, 2010), you didn’t have to be Nostradamus to predict that RPS membership numbers would fall significantly when it lost its regulatory function and membership was no longer compulsory.

Some pharmacists were simply unwilling to continue a relationship with a body that had supported them with one hand and scolded them with the other. And that, to some extent, is understandable.

Now, over 15 years on, with no sign of membership numbers improving – and the profession on the verge of a prescribing future – the Royal College of Pharmacy has launched to a muted fanfare. It has a new focus, a new structure and new leaders.

Surely this is an opportunity for pharmacists to consider afresh their professional leadership body, shake off the instinct to oppose, and look positively to the future?

Yet, even as the paint was drying on the new RCPharm signage, some people were waiting in the wings to highlight perceived failures.

Some are concerned that the Royal College has simply acquiesced to the UK Pharmacy Professional Leadership Advisory Board proposals and suggest this is evidence of continued weakness. Others highlight the change in the primary objective of the old Royal Pharmaceutical Society, from promoting the interests of pharmacists to now putting public benefit first, and there is anxiety about allowing pharmacy technician membership.

So is supporting a professional leadership body just anathema to many pharmacists?

If we agree that such a leadership body is a good thing – and it is – then how can we contribute to making it a success? Imagine what it could achieve if the profession truly stood behind it.

I certainly wish the RCPharm all the best.