Andy Gray
The first day of October saw the next phase in the long road to constitutional transformation for the Pharmaceutical Society, when the various bodies met in Johannesburg. Neatly penned in by legalisms, cowed by occasional outbreaks of Latin – a sui generis here, an ipso facto there - the Philadelphians of the various organisations sought to bring clarity to the road map approved at General Council in May. That road map was at best a very large-scale affair – little of the topography of the new Society could be gleaned from its simple outlines. A road to the future, no doubt, but one that still had to find (let alone pass) many obstacles. And so we veered this way and that, skirting ditches that sought to wrench wheels from the chassis, and occasionally reducing bumps to flat earth. One of those bumps has always been the definition of the sectoral divisions which will be recognised both at branch and national level. The map currently recognises four such divisions. As with the names of our provinces in the New South Africa (do we still feel new?), naming these entities is no simple matter. The name gives an indication of the areas of practice from which its membership will be drawn. Membership numbers mean power. It is no accident that SAAHIP presently relies on the vague definition of "Hospital and Institutional Pharmacists". Our American cousins have changed their name to "Health-systems Pharmacists", the British Guild refers to "Healthcare Pharmacists". To restrict ourselves to the "hospital" moniker would imply rejection of many who practise in organised healthcare settings, to throw the net as wide as the British would invite criticism of poaching from the community sector, to continue to use the "institution" signpost is seen as grasping for industry members. And the bump-flattening answer? It will be up to you to choose your sector of primary membership, regardless of definition or name.
| Home | Organisation
| Activities | Policy | Links | Search |
webmaster@saahip.org.za