After an impassioned debate, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual general meeting rejected a proposal demanding that the Council give no further thought to the possibility of pharmacy technicians becoming full members of either the Society or a new body akin to a royal college.
The motion, proposed by Mark Walker (Oxford), read as follows: “The annual general meeting directs Council and the Society to discontinue any consideration, discussion or action that may lead to pharmacy technicians becoming full members of the Society or of the proposed royal college.”
Eighteen members contributed to the debate. Supporters of the motion thought that technician membership would damage the status of pharmacy in the eyes of the public. They included Sandra Gidley, MP, (Romsey, Hampshire), who said that royal colleges were all about excellence. The new body should only represent pharmacists, she said, because that was the only way to ensure a body of true excellence that would command respect.
Most opponents believed that the new body would gain strength from involving the whole pharmacy family. Others rejected the motion on the ground that discussion should not be stifled before it is known what all the functions of the new body might be. And towards the end of the debate, Jen De Val (London) made the point that the length of the debate had clearly demonstrated a need to continue discussing the issue.
The motion was lost by 48 votes to 34, with four recorded abstentions.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's official journal
