Unfair criticism and false allegations from pharmacy academia about the Pharm D programme introduced by Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) are maligning the reputation of the international course on clinical pharmacy practice and making obstacles to its progress, according to pharmacy professionals in academic field and in health department.

The programme is aimed at creating a clinical or patient oriented pharmacy services in the hospitals of our vast country, and also in the community pharmacy settings. It has been undoubtedly proven that PCI is perhaps the largest pharmacy education regulatory body in the world and Pharm D is the best known degree to reform the field of pharmacy practice. Without giving attention to genuine facts, a group of academic critics launch sharp criticisms against the programme and argue that Pharm D graduates are not useful to any of the states in India, or to India as a whole, and cannot work outside India and send money to India.

This kind of negative comments from a few number of teachers and professors of pharmacy (in anonymity) cause to discourage the students who want to do the programme. Ultimately, these detractors want to see the programme stopped by the government by hook or by crook.

However, a good number of academicians and pharmacy professionals support the PCI and want to promote the course in order to improve, standardise and internationalise the profession of clinical pharmacy in the country. According to them, this educational course will open up new and challenging avenues for the professionals and also for the patients to improve their healthcare problems.

Those who disparage the scope of Pharm D are making a deliberate attempt to tarnish the repute of the qualification which is necessary for clinical pharmacy services in India when crores of patients get treated at hospitals. The major reason for their negative stand is misunderstanding about the programme and confusion about job prospects. They are knowingly or unknowingly confusing the students learning the programme in six years and three years, said a senior pharmacist. He termed their behaviour as a kind of vengeance or revenge towards somebody.

Pharmacy council of India started the programme in the year 2008 with a good intention to improve the pharmacy services in the Indian healthcare system and to increase the dignity of the profession. But, from the beginning a group of people have been raising allegations about the way the programme was introduced and the way it is disturbing the smooth running of the course putting the students into a quandary.

The detractors include academicians and pharmacists who allege that the course was started without assessing the need of the country. They want to ‘plant’ news in the media against the Program. They make some issues intentionally and raise them as concerns about job prospects in India and accreditation and equivalency of the certificate in US, UK and other European countries. Further they spread a news that there is zero employment opportunities for Pharm D people both in India and in outside.

In their attempts to stop students from joining the course, they put several questions to the candidates seeking admissions. They ask what efforts have been made by PCI for generating employment opportunities in government services, whether government has created the posts of clinical pharmacists, whether the course is recognised in foreign countries, whether the certificates get accreditation abroad, does the healthcare system in the country really need clinical pharmacists, is Pharm D a program of international standard and whether the doctors in the hospitals recognise and accept Pharm D holders to work along with them.

While making some criticisms, a senior pharmacy professional from Karnataka said Pharm D has contributed significantly to the rising concerns of certain academicians about the programme because there is still unemployment for M Pharm graduates. According to him, the medical officers are not recognizing the pharmacists and they can manage their pharmacies without the help of a pharmacist. He argues that Diploma in Pharmacy is a sufficient qualification for pharmacy practice and if more and more Pharm D graduates are produced, they have to compete with the Diploma holders.

This kind of criticisms has no relevance when plenty of academic courses are coming up every day and lots of graduates are produced in various disciplines in a country like India wherein more than 125 crore of people seek healthcare everyday.