The quest of standards and protection

I refer to the comments by I.M. Beck (February 14) on the position of the Consumers' Association regarding pharmacy licences.

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.

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 they have interests to protect as well. Consumers, moreover, are realising 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 have not 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, the 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.