Derbyshire vet petitions RCVS for retention of post-nominals on the Register

RE: Derbyshire vet petitions RCVS for retention of post-nominals on the Register

Martin Whiting — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:59:09 GMT

Dear Hannah, which bit do you agree with? Did you get involved with the consultation when it was publicised on the RCVS News in 2011, on the front cover? www.rcvs.org.uk/.../rcvs-news-november-2011

RE: Derbyshire vet petitions RCVS for retention of post-nominals on the Register

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:31:03 GMT

I'm with Victoria, and have signed the petition

Wynne

RE: Derbyshire vet petitions RCVS for retention of post-nominals on the Register

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 01:42:46 GMT

I agree absolutely with Martin - the content of the CertAVP A module is of vital importance to all practising vets.

I don't see any harm leaving the qualifications in the resister alongside the notation of 'advanced practitioner' and 'recognised specialist'.

RE: Derbyshire vet petitions RCVS for retention of post-nominals on the Register

Martin Whiting — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:39:58 GMT

I have to say I completely agree with the RCVS on this one. There is nothing to stop people using their post-nomials on their letters or in house practice details or business cards. But the register is maintained as a list of vets and their status. That is in the public interest. That is what the public need, clarity of the status of the people looking after their animals not just their letters. Sure, we can all have as many qualifications after our name as we like. But standardising and displaying our status as vets is very different.

I also slightly perturbed that one seems to think that a greater understanding of ethics will not increase their skills as a clinician. Perhaps a deeper understanding of the public interest and social contract within ethics would lead to a greater appreciation of why the register is going to contain, what it will.