Any Response to the Millis Commission Report must be flavored by the numerous interactions with colleagues, editorial comments in journals, and observations of pharmacy which have occurred since this report was released. In fact, it is doubtful whether any pharmacy organization of any size has not participated in an organized effort to understand the substance and implications of this report. Because this effort continues amid conflict, controversy, and contradiction, I must believe the profession is struggling to understand the commission's message. This confusion may be reduced by placing the report in a historical — And perhaps irreverent — Perspective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ElliottE. C.: The General Report of the Pharmaceutical Survey, 1946–49, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1950, publisher's foreword.
2.
Ibid: Director's Commentary, x.
3.
Ibid: Page 230.
4.
MillisJohn S.: Pharmacists For the Future: The Report of the Study Commission on Pharmacy, Health Administration Press, Ann Arbor, p. 142.
5.
FranckeDonald E.: Drugs in Health Care3: 66–69, 1976.
6.
MillisJohn S.: Pharmacists For the Future: The Report of the Study Commission on Pharmacy, Health Administration Press, Ann Arbor, p. 58.
