HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1337024,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1337024/?format=api",
"text_counter": 236,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
"speaker": null,
"content": " Hon. Temporary Speaker, aside from that, I do not have a problem with the Bill as it is. I have said that I support it. However, I have a problem with two aspects of some sections of the Report of the Committee which I have gone through. The first aspect is what Hon. Deputy Speaker spoke to. That is what is in Section 2(d) of the Committee’s Report. There was a proposal in the Report - I hope they will drop it - to remove the veterinary medicine from the ambit of the Bill as submitted by Hon. (Dr) Nyikal. It is my view that whether it is human or veterinary medicine, it is still medicine. The molecular composition may vary, but not substantially. Therefore, it is my view that regulation of veterinary medicine just like human medicine must still be centralised and brought back to this Authority. I would really like to urge the Committee to consider and drop that amendment. The second general area is what Hon. (Dr) Dawood spoke to and Hon. (Dr,) Nyikal also mentioned it. There are very many areas in which the Committee is suggesting adding the word, “pharmaceutical technologist” where the word “pharmacist” appears. For example, this includes sections 2(m) and 39 to 41 in the Report, when it comes to regulation of wholesale dealers. It also includes Section 41 where we are talking about adding pharmaceutical technologists to deal with scheduled substances. It is in a variety of places which I do not have to enumerate all of them. I have pointed out some of them to Dr Pukose. Hon. Temporary Speaker, I have a conceptual problem with that approach: Where you have the word “pharmacist,” you simply want to add the word “pharmaceutical technologist.” While I agree with what Hon. Dawood and Dr Nyikal said, we need to find a niche for each. I do not agree that you can lump these two people together. It is not only pharmacy that has this problem, but also there is an issue between pathologists and laboratory technicians; doctors and clinicians; architects and draftsmen; and engineers and inspectors. Hon. Temporary Speaker, the engineers have an issue with the inspectors, and even the advocates have an issue with paralegals or clerks. It cannot be that one can go for learning at a certain level of a certain rank for so many years and that, it can just be amended by the stroke of the pen that it is so and so. If one graduates, it is okay, and one can always rise higher, but until you get there, roles must be preserved for you and someone of higher learning who also takes higher responsibility for their actions. Therefore, I want to persuade the Committee to reconsider that approach of simply saying pharmacies/pharmaceutical technologists and adopt a more practical approach of looking at what pharmaceutical technologists can do and what we will reserve for pharmacists. It can be and has been argued that, as a country, we have a shortage of specialists, including pharmacists. We have issues of costs, issues of people who are experienced even if they are technologists, sometimes even more than the pharmacists. However, there are reasons for this categorisation, and the solution cannot be to lower the standards or threshold. The solution must address those specifics and agree on what we want to hold at a higher and lower pedestal. Then, for each pedestal, to have those respective categories to the highest professional standard and punish them whenever transgression occurs. I disagree, therefore, that we can simply say that anything a pharmacist can do, a pharmaceutical technologist can do, and there are many in this Bill. Lastly, there is a technical point that the Committee should consider; I urge Hon. (Dr) Pukose to look at the history of this Bill. You will see that on 24th October 2018, similar provisions were discussed. At that time, a similar thing had been done, and the Attorney- General advised that it was improper to equate those two levels. When the Bill went to the President, he refused to assent and brought it back with those observations, and I am sure Hon. (Dr) Pukose’s clerks will be able to get all that. Do we want to walk that path again? Where there was an advisory issued, it was ignored, and then it resulted in refusal to assent. Technically, what would that mean? When it has come back and is The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}