Glimpses from FORUM - A jaundiced View July 1981

 

A PRESCIENT VIEWPOINT FROM 1981

In the early 1980s an active member of the South African Association of Hospital and Institutional pharmacists submitted several opinion pieces for publication in FORUM, the Association’s official journal. He did so under nom-de-plumes, for good reason. One such article I consider as prescient, and I copy it here for you to decide for yourself. It was published in the July 1981 issue of Forum.

A JAUNDICED VIEW……

More about Cloud Nine and some thoughts about SAAHIP and the PSSA

I must say I enjoy this anonymous column writing! I can let off steam in considerable amounts without a care for the consequences and am saving on my visits to my psychiatrist.

I have been gleefully watching ripples spreading from my outpouring about Cloud Nine. Quite a number of pharmacists seem to think it referred to their hospital. Others are confident that it could not possibly be them. (easy conscience or insufferable complacency?). Tempting though it is to give the pot a few more stirs to see what happens, my better side will not do it, and the Truth must be Told. And the truth is that Cloud Nine Hospital is no single hospital, (though I can think of a few Cloud Sixes or Sevens) but it is a horrible monster, like Frankenstein, made out of bits. In this case, the worst bits from several hospitals, not all from the same town, or for that matter even from the same province! So you can all relax – it wasn’t really directed at YOU, even if you did seem to recognise one or two of the bits! There was one pharmacist who was actually quite indignant about it.  “Quite unfair” she said. Now there’s a paradox for you!

Whatever therapeutic effect I derived from the Cloud Nine affair, it was all dissipated by this business about SAAHIP being taken over by the PSSA. (Well, yes, I know it’s supposed to be only finances, but he who pays the piper ……) And talking of finances, the reason we're in this spot is that of the R25 you pay, the PSSA keeps R10 and gives us R15 to run SAAHIP.  With rising costs this isn't enough. So, what do we do? Why, instead of  asking for a bit more than only 40% of the subscription which we pay to run our Association to look after our interests or even asking for it all, for goodness sake, we go and propose to hand the lot over to the PSSA in return for…… well, in return for agreeing to submit our budget to the PSSA by January 31st, and an agreement that any increase in subscriptions will be discussed with us first! Discussed, not necessarily approved!

I know the third “A" in SAAHIP can be abbreviated to "Ass." but really don't think we should allow ourselves to be taken for a donkey ride like this. After all, we had a choice. We joined SAAHIP and not the PSSA because we knew (or so we thought) how our interests would best be served.

Now I'm not saying that the PSSA is anything but a body of fine and upstanding, honourable men. I know and have dealt with, and greatly admire many members of the PSSA's Executive. We can learn a great deal from them. We should co-operate and liaise with them and do our damndest not to dispute with them.

Our basic interests are similar, but - and here's the rub - not necessarily always identical. At times they might di£fer sharply. And then what? If we need finances to conduct a campaign opposing theirs, will we get it? Can you not think of example after example of how undesirable it might be not to be able to act with total independence?

Already they have differed with us - or at least required a great deal of convincing to the contrary. That time they were convinced. Next time they may not be.

So what shall we do? Close up shop and leave it all in the hands of the PSSA? Should we just leave it, as our Exco with colossal effrontery has dared to put it to us - assuming our consent if we don't write in and put them right? Shouldn't we have a much harder look at it?

'1 leave you with this thought - remember the Chamber Principle? - Where SAAHIP would be the Institutional "Chamber" in a Society which would "speak with one voice"? A Society in which the "Retail Chamber" would be able to outvote all the other Chambers put together?

Good. Now, do you remember why it was all dropped? Not because it was inequitable. Not because SAAHIP wouldn't agree. No. It was, if I am not mistaken, because it would put too much influence in the hands of employee pharmacists at the expense of the owner-interests which dominate the PSSA!

A straw, if ever there was one, in the wind which could sweep away fifteen or more years of steady progress, by SAAHIP, just as it is wielding ever more significant influence -· influence which must remain with us and not with a body who, however honourable and fair, have their own interests and whose knowledge of our problems is often wildly inaccurate.

Incidentally, I can disclose that there is no truth in rumours that at the next general election the Prime Minister will consider the Opposition voted out of office if he doesn1t hear to the contrary by a specified date! Exco - please note!

ICTERIS