- Email: [email protected]
for our common good
-from President
J. Warren Lansdowne
organization in Britain ( continued) the National Health Service. The work of the NPU and its daughter bodies has prospered and it has conferred great benefits upon the pharmacist in community practice. The pharmacist, however, has increasingly found himself faced with economic and professional pressures which he cannot fully comprehend but which he feels threaten his future both professionally and economically. The center of gravity of pharmacy is shifting from the community establishment to the factory. The chain store and the co-operative society menace the individual proprietor. A semi-nationalized health service can open health centers equipped with dispensaries. And finally a Minister of Health declares that a prescription is not a prescription (if its price is less than 30¢) but an order of the same validity as a demand over the counter, This has led to a demand for closer unity between bodies representing pharmacy. It was reflected in a motion adopted at the annual meeting this year of representatives from branches of the society- " That steps should be taken to enable the society to exercise full activity in .the interests of all pharmacists." The resolution was carried by a close vote and the implications of this will now have to be closely examined by the councils of the two bodies primarily concerned- the society and the union. We do not yet know what the outcome may be; but a colleague put to the meeting the considerations that we will have to take into account. His closely knit argument has, I think, an application beyond our own British problems and T cannot better conclude
T
here are three things we must practice as individuals, as well as members of the pharmaceutical profession, if we would make the most of our fight for professional survivalThe first is tolerance. Until we find some means of jumping from earth to the moon, we have to live herewhether we like it or not. Thus, we must tolerate other people. You see, they can't move out either. They have to tolerate us. The second, appreciation. When we appreciate and acknowledge things that are worthwhile in others, that appreciation and understanding will be reflected in the advancement of those things worthwhile in us. Third, co-operation. A logical sequence to the first and second-with tolerance of the other fellow, and appreciation of his good qualities, we can only be led to say, "Let's pull together for our common good."
this account of the present state of the organization of British pharmacy than by quoting from the report of his remarks in the Pharmaceutical Journal. He saidMuch had been said about the lack of activity of the society on matters of financial importance and of material interest to members. It could not be overlooked that pharmacists do not exist simply as such; they were always something else: they were proprietor pharmacists, or employee pharmacists, or they worked for a company, or for a private pharmacist; they were hospital pharmacists; or they worked in industry. The real problem was to secure that these potentially conflicting interests were, in fact, reconciled in some way. That was not a question of trying to get one organization to achieve what would be the impossible, because each pharmacist, in his secondary capacity, might have matters he wished to pursue outside the professional sphere or which were to some extent at variance with the general view taken by the other sections, from a professional angle. Matters would have to be worked out with a view to getting the greatest common agreement. Surely that could be done by co-operation between the society and various sectionaJ bodies. As far as could be seen, there was nothing which prevented the society from interesting itself in the material affairs of the members; it could co-operate with other organizations to get better terms, advocate policies, and use its influence to further the material interests of members. These things could be done under the existing charter and ... the society had been quite active in that field. If greater activity were to take place along those lines, it did n'o t ... depend
primarily on the society. It depended primarily on the willingness of other organizations to work within the professional framework: to recognize that the pharmacist must always accept the view that his professional responsibilities came first and his economic interests second. It was partly the difficulty of reconciling sectional interests which was at the root of the trouble. At the time when the National Health Service Bill was going through Parliament ... there was a Joint Committee oh a National Pharmaceutical Service, in which the society was the "center piece" in co-operation with other organizations. That body had been abandoned as soon as the question of negotiations on terms arose, because it was felt that the society was not an appropriate organization to deal with such matters, and ought to keep out. When the position was looked at, one could see what happened. A proprietors' organization might well think that the society would be more interested in other aspects of pharmacy; an employer organization would think that the society might favor the employees, the employees' side that it would favor employers, hospital pharmacists that the retail side would be favored and so on. That was the crux of the matter. The society ... had always shown itself willing to co-operate in any matter for the welfare of the pharmacist, but, unless other organizations were prepared to sink their individual interests on matters of fundamental importance, then, it did not seem possible to get the result which they all desired. It could not be achieved by one organization, simply because there were sectional interests which had a right to exist and which had certain points of view which they were entitled to hold. • Vol. NS1. No.8, August 1961
501
J. Warren Lansdowne
organization in Britain ( continued) the National Health Service. The work of the NPU and its daughter bodies has prospered and it has conferred great benefits upon the pharmacist in community practice. The pharmacist, however, has increasingly found himself faced with economic and professional pressures which he cannot fully comprehend but which he feels threaten his future both professionally and economically. The center of gravity of pharmacy is shifting from the community establishment to the factory. The chain store and the co-operative society menace the individual proprietor. A semi-nationalized health service can open health centers equipped with dispensaries. And finally a Minister of Health declares that a prescription is not a prescription (if its price is less than 30¢) but an order of the same validity as a demand over the counter, This has led to a demand for closer unity between bodies representing pharmacy. It was reflected in a motion adopted at the annual meeting this year of representatives from branches of the society- " That steps should be taken to enable the society to exercise full activity in .the interests of all pharmacists." The resolution was carried by a close vote and the implications of this will now have to be closely examined by the councils of the two bodies primarily concerned- the society and the union. We do not yet know what the outcome may be; but a colleague put to the meeting the considerations that we will have to take into account. His closely knit argument has, I think, an application beyond our own British problems and T cannot better conclude
T
here are three things we must practice as individuals, as well as members of the pharmaceutical profession, if we would make the most of our fight for professional survivalThe first is tolerance. Until we find some means of jumping from earth to the moon, we have to live herewhether we like it or not. Thus, we must tolerate other people. You see, they can't move out either. They have to tolerate us. The second, appreciation. When we appreciate and acknowledge things that are worthwhile in others, that appreciation and understanding will be reflected in the advancement of those things worthwhile in us. Third, co-operation. A logical sequence to the first and second-with tolerance of the other fellow, and appreciation of his good qualities, we can only be led to say, "Let's pull together for our common good."
this account of the present state of the organization of British pharmacy than by quoting from the report of his remarks in the Pharmaceutical Journal. He saidMuch had been said about the lack of activity of the society on matters of financial importance and of material interest to members. It could not be overlooked that pharmacists do not exist simply as such; they were always something else: they were proprietor pharmacists, or employee pharmacists, or they worked for a company, or for a private pharmacist; they were hospital pharmacists; or they worked in industry. The real problem was to secure that these potentially conflicting interests were, in fact, reconciled in some way. That was not a question of trying to get one organization to achieve what would be the impossible, because each pharmacist, in his secondary capacity, might have matters he wished to pursue outside the professional sphere or which were to some extent at variance with the general view taken by the other sections, from a professional angle. Matters would have to be worked out with a view to getting the greatest common agreement. Surely that could be done by co-operation between the society and various sectionaJ bodies. As far as could be seen, there was nothing which prevented the society from interesting itself in the material affairs of the members; it could co-operate with other organizations to get better terms, advocate policies, and use its influence to further the material interests of members. These things could be done under the existing charter and ... the society had been quite active in that field. If greater activity were to take place along those lines, it did n'o t ... depend
primarily on the society. It depended primarily on the willingness of other organizations to work within the professional framework: to recognize that the pharmacist must always accept the view that his professional responsibilities came first and his economic interests second. It was partly the difficulty of reconciling sectional interests which was at the root of the trouble. At the time when the National Health Service Bill was going through Parliament ... there was a Joint Committee oh a National Pharmaceutical Service, in which the society was the "center piece" in co-operation with other organizations. That body had been abandoned as soon as the question of negotiations on terms arose, because it was felt that the society was not an appropriate organization to deal with such matters, and ought to keep out. When the position was looked at, one could see what happened. A proprietors' organization might well think that the society would be more interested in other aspects of pharmacy; an employer organization would think that the society might favor the employees, the employees' side that it would favor employers, hospital pharmacists that the retail side would be favored and so on. That was the crux of the matter. The society ... had always shown itself willing to co-operate in any matter for the welfare of the pharmacist, but, unless other organizations were prepared to sink their individual interests on matters of fundamental importance, then, it did not seem possible to get the result which they all desired. It could not be achieved by one organization, simply because there were sectional interests which had a right to exist and which had certain points of view which they were entitled to hold. • Vol. NS1. No.8, August 1961
501