In a news item on 18 April 2025, we reported that Mrs Justice Lambert had rejected an application for judicial review by the British Medical Association against a decision of the General Medical Council to use the term “medical professionals” when referring collectively to medical practitioners, physician associates and anaesthesia associates in Good Medical Practice. The case is of interest because there is dissatisfaction in some quarters that the General Pharmaceutical Council refers to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians collectively as “pharmacy professionals”.
The Court of Appeal has just rejected an appeal against the judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert. In R (British Medical Association) v General Medical Council [2026] EWCA Civ 143.
In a judgment with which Lords Justice Baker and Cobb agreed, Lord Justice Coulson said:
“… the label “medical professionals” is accurate as a matter of language. Doctors are obviously medical professionals. But so too are associates. The judge [Mrs Justice Lambert] found … that PAs and AAs were “fairly described as medical professionals”. … Moreover, I consider that the judge was right to so find. Associates are professionals because they are paid for providing a service. They provide that service in connection with or relating to the practice of medicine …, because they are helping to treat physical and mental ill health. So associates are not doctors, but they are medical professionals…
“medical professionals” is simply another label for “registrants” and similarly intended to cover both doctors and associates. Its use does not suggest or encourage one profession to describe itself as another…”
Despite what the Court of Appeal said, some may take the view that physician associates, anaesthesia associates and pharmacy technicians are professionals not because they are paid for providing a service but because, like doctors and pharmacists, they are members of a profession. Someone who is paid to play a sport is called a professional, as distinct from an amateur. However, football and tennis are not professions. A “profession”, which is the relevant context of the BMA case, is associated with branches of learning, training, qualification and/or registration, and regulation.
Context and understanding also matter. Doctors and physician associates may well both be medical professionals, just as pharmacists and pharmacy technicians (now that the latter are regulated etc) are pharmacy professionals.
However, it is disingenuous to ignore that to the public, “medical professional” may imply “doctor”, and “pharmacy professional” may imply “pharmacist”.
If the term “medical/pharmacy professional” is to be used, those using it should be clear to the audience on what they mean by it, and should not use it interchangeably with more specific professional titles.
Interestingly, there is similar discussion over the term “provider”: doctors are waking up to the social importance of language, and that a term may simultaneously be technically accurate but may also have the effect of eliding important differences between professions, usually to the disadvantage of those with higher-level (more expensive) qualifications – and, potentially, ultimately patients.
Instead of wasting precious time thinking about who should be named what, just do your job as I am sure everyone knows what they have studied for. Regarding the public, it is really about education, not doing everything for the the public. Meaning, to empower them with knowledge, not solely regarding who looks after their health but about how to maintain health and to know the basics about their health.
The term “pharmacy professionals” was used by GPhC when it was established but makes no distinction between pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, who are treated in exactly the same way and subject to the same set of standards if brought before a hearing of the Fitness to Practise Committee. Furthermore no such distinction is made on the GPhC website under the section dealing with what the public should expect when visiting a pharmacy. When I as a member of the FtP I wrote to the CEO on several occasions suggesting there should be clarification on this matter especially since such information was provided on the websites of the GMC and GDCC, but I received no response.
I am concerned that the distinction between the responsibilities and activities of pharmacists and technicians is becoming blurred, especially as I was under the impression that pharmacists were ultimately responsible for the activities of their technical staff….although perhaps this is no longer the case?
I am surprised that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society does not seem to have pursued his matter but it seems these days it is GPhC that makes he running rather than the RPS.
I don’t know if this is an issue that has been raised by many others and it would be interesting to know the views of other members of PLEA.