The RPS plans a Q1 vote on becoming a royal college. A maximum of 11 weeks to go and it still has not published a draft charter or charity constitution document - let alone invited comments from #pharmacists. The @rpharms claims to want to “inform and inspire” members to vote. To how many pharmacists has it explained that as a royal college and charity it would be acting solely for the public benefit, and not in the interests of pharmacists as at present? Perhaps the RPS is aware that if it explained this to pharmacists, it would be akin to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas? —- Remember the findings from the independent review - commissioned by the RPS in 2022 - about the RPS’s member participation? It described the RPS as an “opaque organisation” and recommended it “be more open and transparent”. Has anything changed? —- Less than 18 months ago, the RPS - ironically - was calling out others on their lack of transparency, writing: “Its deliberations are opaque as well as slow.” “All in all, we have real concerns that this is not being managed with sufficient transparency, speed or care for it to be successful and provide what the profession and the public would expect, rather than what agents of government might prefer.”

Great montage of proponents of the Bill saying the High Court will be the ultimate safeguard And now they are going to drop it Shameful

Prisoner CNN helped free from Syrian prison was actually notorious Assad-regime torturer: report

Pharmacists should be able to help any medical colleagues wondering how this will play out. We’ve seen similar in pharmacy over the past 20 years, driven by money/cost-cutting. The meaning of words will be strained beyond what is credible, such that the point being made no longer holds true. The GMC will start to regulate PAs, calling PAs and doctors collectively, “medical professionals”. The use of the terminology will become commonplace, including among those with academic titles. They’ll teach it in universities. People will start to regard it as in their self-interest to adopt the term, lest they be chastised or “cancelled” for failing to do so. Students will not be taught to question it. Training will no longer be designed specifically for doctors, but “medical professionals”, thereby reducing the complexity, depth or specialised nature of that training and its suitability for doctors. Standards will be set for “medical professionals” which are but a shadow of those which exist now - dropping more complex provisions in favour of concepts such as politeness and servility. Those at your professional body will eventually adopt the term “medical professionals”, and will regard it as in their interests to seek to represent doctors and PAs collectively, despite the evident conflict of interests. They will perceive that there is money to be made from doing so, for example through the sale of indemnity insurance or increased revenue from membership fees. They’ll use terms such as “inclusivity” and “collaboration” to try to persuade you to act against your own interests, and stifle any challenge from you. You’ll find yourselves without any effective representation of your professional interests. Their membership numbers will drop, and they’ll pretend that they don’t understand why. The above will be cheered on by high-profile individuals within the profession. They’ll act as if they are on the side of the profession, whilst simultaneously causing it harm. You may wonder if they’re ignorant of politics, but that’s not it. They’re simply hoping to raise their own profile, and they’ll be applauded by a number of PAs who revel in the false-flattery of being grouped with doctors as “the medical profession”. @Doc_IonaCollins

I remain opposed to the PA role in its’ current form. Many excellent arguments expressing concern over the PA role are cynically discredited by self interested national organisations playing the “toxicity” card. And it is effective. Please don’t gift wrap the “toxicity” card for those who will certainly play it. Cool heads are needed here.