Magazine article Drug Topics

Letters

Magazine article Drug Topics

Letters

Article excerpt

Credibility and credentialing

Both Mr. Sesti and Mr. Goulet make interesting points in Squaring Off (Drug Topics, June 15), but each, in my opinion, misses the boat. The profession of pharmacy has lagged behind for many years in bringing proper recognition to the meaning of its existence. Why else would there be a need for physician assistants and nurse practitioners? The Doctor of Pharmacy degree is the very essence of both of these entrepreneurial programs. And they have taken from what is rightfully pharmacy's place-pharmacy's future.

We have argued terribly, as a whole, to agree on the fact that for the sake of the profession and for its future existence the Pharm.D. degree must be the only degree. Absolutely true, except that a doctorate in pharmacy has been around since the first of this century, and pharmacy failed to pursue it. Then the two California schools adopted the Pharm.D. as the only degree in the '50s, and pharmacy again failed to recognize the importance the advanced degree would have on the future of pharmacy-it was never intended to be a "luxury" degree.

Now we're arguing about counseling vs. credentialing. Are they the same thing? Is credentialing the same as specialization? Do these two authors fail to understand that since the Pharm.D. will be the only degree, the doctorate provides all the credentialing one needs for cognitive reimbursement?

Until we agree, as a profession, that we did not go to school just to be able to fill a prescription, we won't make any headway. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.