Unnecessary Red Tape Removed by the Bill. The amendments contained in Sections 14, 22, 22A, and 22B which allow bodies corporate owned by non-pharmacists as well as individual non-pharmacists to own pharmacies is to be welcomed. As long as there is a qualified pharmacist in control of a pharmacy there is no reason whatsoever for government to become involved in the question of ownership. As a professional, a pharmacist is bound by a professional code of conduct which cannot be over- ridden by a potentially criminal owner, just as a lawyer or accountant is bound by a professional code of conduct which takes precedence over unlawful instructions issued by an employer. Pharmacists will probably predict dire consequences for the general public if this liberalisation measure is allowed to stand. A possible contention could be that a pharmacist as owner is less likely to contravene the law than a pharmacist as employee. This would be an unjustifiable reflection on all pharmacists who are not wealthy enough to own pharmacies. Suggestions that the same care and attention will not be given to the needs of the customer if large companies move into the pharmacy retail business would also be a reflection on pharmacists employed by the businesses and in charge of their pharmacy operations. It is not the duty of government to guarantee a business monopoly to the members of any profession. It is government's duty to establish general rules applicable to everyone, including itself, and under the rule of such a legal system there is no place for special privileges for any particular category of person. Government is to be congratulated on these proposed changes. There is no doubt that customers will benefit in the form of improved service and lower prices from the increased competition that will result. Pharmacists who cannot compete as owners will have a range of employment opportunities whilst those who are already working as employees will have vastly increased job opportunities.
