|
PHARMACY LICENSES
– Pathetic
-
Benny Borg Bonello
I refer to
the comments made by I.M. Beck regarding the position of
the Consumers’ Association regarding pharmacy licences in
the Times of 14th February, 2004.
First I
declare my interest. I am not ashamed of writing under my
name as I stand by what I write. I am interested in
seeing that the consumer gets a fair deal. My only
backers are the consumers. I am not paid to deliver
someone else’s message. In other words, I am not a
mercenary doing the job with a hidden interest.
I.M. Beck
chose to twist my arguments to fit his interests, whatever
these may be. Our Association believes in competition
and standards. The fact that I.M. Beck chose to
eliminate the part regarding standards from our arguments
and then try to ridicule us is simply a pathetic effort.
Our
argument is simple – liberalise licences but set up higher
standards. In fact, in our submissions to the Ministry of
Health we emphasised this aspect and declared that the
legal notice needs much improvement even in the area of
standards. When we recently met representatives of the
Chamber of Pharmacists, we stated that we would support
any higher standards they would put forward.
But in
order to have higher standards, entry into the market need
not be restricted. Standards depend on regulation and not
on protection of one’s market position. But competition
does help to increase our standards. On the other hand,
restriction of entry into the market does weaken standards
as there will not be any incentive for the market
operators to improve.
Then, I.M.
Beck used the argument that medicines are price
controlled. We do not agree that they should be. If we
take a look at past experience, price control in this
sector has not been that effective. All consumers
complain about the high price of medicines. That is why
we believe that if price control helped anyone, it was
certainly not the consumers who benefited.
Relaxing
price control on medicines does not mean that pharmacists
should be less forceful when it comes to dispensing drugs,
controlled or not. This can only be assured by rigorous
implementation of standards. As I said, if the present
regulations are not effective enough to control the use of
drugs and other chemicals, let us set them higher.
In the past, people like I.M.
Beck could act like a demagogue and shout down all
opposing arguments, many a time through insults to
safeguard their and other vested interests while
preserving the archaic structures and practices in the
process. People like I.M. Beck are realising that the
future does not provide them with such protection.
On the other hand, consumers
are realising that they have interests to protect as
well. Consumers, moreover, are realising that they have a
right, like anyone else, to voice their opinion. That is
why they are becoming more assertive. The Consumers’
Association is encouraged by the number of letters to the
press insisting that their rights be protected. ‘Saintly’
consumers may have ‘little feet’ but I can assure I.M.
Beck and others that in future, consumers will be a force
to be reckoned with.
Today, just describing the
opposition as ‘unqualified and uninformed’ does not
suffice. Calling names confirms that there are no
arguments to substantiate one’s position as is evident
from I.M. Beck’s writing. Readers have a right to be
informed of the arguments put forward by all sides. Then,
they decide whether one is qualified, informed and astute
or not. I haven’t read anywhere that I.M. Beck has been
anointed to determine the abilities of other people.
Maybe he has. On the other hand, maybe it could be a sign
of frustration, intolerance and arrogance.
One
last point, government is not there to protect established
interests. It is there to protect the common good and as
such must take into account the consumers’ view and
justify the final position they take. Consumers are not
asking for privileges but to have their right to choice
and higher standards protected.
|
