RCPharm: public posturing and professional interests

In Opinion

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

I read the recent statement from the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA), which explained it was taking up one of the main objectives of the old RPS.

In its evolution to the Royal College of Pharmacy (RCPharm), the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) objective “To safeguard, maintain the honour, and promote the interests of pharmacists in the exercise of their profession” has been dropped and replaced with “The objects of the College shall be for the public benefit”. 

While careful not to criticise the RCPharm, the PDA presents this as a failing that creates a gap in provision that it intends to fill. 

Political posturing

This struck me somewhat as gamesmanship and political posturing, spinning an innocuous situation to create the perception of a problem. The move is entirely for the benefit of the PDA, which, we must remember, is a commercial competitor of the RCPharm in terms of its professional indemnity insurance offer. 

There is no conflict in my opinion between the new objective of the RCPharm and the previous RPS objective. In truth, my expectation is that the RCPharm will deliver on this objective, because as a profession we must have public benefit at our very core. 

There can be no situation in which we promote the interests of the profession at the expense of the public. Changes within the profession, such as the introduction of prescribing, can only be successful if they add value to the public. 

To be exposed as promoting the interests of the profession ahead of the interests of the public would be a disaster.

Public must be the focus

While it has been suggested that the members should be the focal point of a professional body, not the public, I don’t agree. The ultimate focus must be the public: this is then translated into how the profession can be promoted to meet their needs. Organisations and businesses that forget this are doomed to failure. 

If, for example, a professional journal defined its editorial content to meet the interests of its journalists and the commercial success of its publisher without focusing on reader benefits, it would not survive. Without readers, advertisers will not advertise; without advertisers, there is no magazine or business.

Explicitly stating that the customer, consumer or client – or, in the case of a professional body, the public interest – comes first helps to prevent an organisation from becoming self-serving.

“The College must not be a rebadged version of the RPS. It needs to be different. It needs to create a critical mass of members that gives it authority”

Member impact

So what does this mean for us as pharmacists? Firstly, we need to recognise that statements from organisations and individuals may come from a position of bias. We should be clear about what drives these individuals and organisations to act in specific ways.

Secondly, we should give the RCPharm the opportunity to establish itself and develop. While there are many individuals who have transferred between the organisations, we have just elected a new group of people to lead this new body. 

The profession needs a strong leadership body that is influenced by its members and, in turn, is able to influence at the highest level of government, the NHS and other royal colleges. Undermining the organisation at the dawn of its existence does not benefit the profession and will be harmful if it affects the success of the College. To criticise it now seems to be completely self-serving.

Keeping an open mind

For transparency, I am a member of the RCPharm – and I have been very critical of the RPS in the past about its leadership and choices. The RCPharm must create an identity that is valued by members and I am keeping an open mind that will be influenced by the College’s actions and future successes. 

My continued membership is by no means guaranteed. This leads to my final point. The RCPharm must not simply be a re-badged version of the RPS. It needs to be different and vibrant. It needs to create a critical mass that gives it authority. Most of all, it needs to add value to the average member. RCPharm: don’t let us down!

Have your say

• What are your views on the RCPharm’s new main objective?
• If you aren’t a RCPharm member, why not?
• What would encourage you to join?

  Email: pm@1530.com