I read with interest about The Service Rendered By Pharmacists To The Community, by Reginald Fava (November 20). He said that the remuneration accepted by the GRTU and Chamber of Pharmacists of Lm8 gross per patient per year is pathetic and he feels proud that he made such a statement. Surprisingly, what Mr Fava did not say is that this "pittance" remuneration managed to attract practically all pharmacy owners and that there are plans to increase it up to Lm12.

On the other hand, I am dubious about whether the remuneration that these owners offer to their employees is attractive to all pharmacists who don't own a pharmacy. Many times, owners have to phone an endless list of pharmacists to work in their pharmacies.

I said it several times in the past that a pharmacist has a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde behaviour. The thinking and expectations of a pharmacist-owner differ considerably from those of a pharmacist-employee. By time, pharmacists started realising that it is impossible to have a single union representing the interests of both employers and employees together and thanks to me, the UHM now enjoys the recognition for government pharmacists.

I recall my first letter published on The Sunday Times of April 14, 1996. It was in fact a reply letter to a previous letter by Anti-Fraud who admitted to be a pharmacy owner (at that time, cowards were allowed to use a nom-de-plume). The title of his/her letter explains it all! It was called Part-time Pharmacists' Unreasonable Demands.

Without a pharmacist, a pharmacy cannot open. Yet, in spite of all his/her responsibilities, a part-time pharmacist earns between Lm2.50 to Lm4 an hour! Besides dispensing medicines and advising patients accordingly, a pharmacist usually does a host of other things including shouldering the responsibility of keeping the doctors or specialists' fees! Furthermore, the new pharmacy of your choice scheme will doubtlessly add on to the workload of employed pharmacists.

In view of all this, I ask to see whether there are any professionally employed people in Malta whose salaries and responsibilities compare with those of employed pharmacists. For the past 11 years I contributed scores of letters and articles on pharmacists' salaries. So, I need not say more.

However, although there is definitely a Jekyll & Hyde behaviour between me and Mr Fava, I do admire the crystal clarity of his arguments. I always try to respect the opinion of others as long as they are honest in their arguments.

As Mr Fava is so rightly conveying, no pharmacy owner should be reluctant to speak in public about what he/she desires in terms of "profit", so why should a pharmacist-employee be afraid to state what he/she wishes. Whether you are an employer or an employee, we all need money at the end of the day.

Had the Chamber, in the past, argued straight to the point vis-à-vis pharmacists' salaries, their anti-liberalisation policy and recently, on the new pharmacy scheme without cunningly pivoting their arguments on their unique dedication towards patient care and their out-of-this-world, business-free professionalism, I would have saved a lot of precious energy and time! Incidentally, several owners are themselves pharmaceutical importers.

I, finally, thank Mr Fava for disclosing the e-mail from the GRTU saying that their licences are now safe and more valuable than ever. One thing, however, still remains unsettled following their "superficial" negotiations. I am referring to the fate of government dispensers working at health centres. Please don't tell me that no one will lose his/her job. Thank God, they all know that!