End the title MRCVS

Re: End the title MRCVS

J G Wray — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:51:01 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

The Magnificent Seven could be the Magnificant 24, if:

1) more practitioners stood for election,

and 2) veterinary surgeons voted for them.

The approx 80% of the MEMBERSHIP who don't bother voting, quite frankly, have only themselves to blame if they dislike College rulings.

[/quote]

Your prejudice is predicated on RCVS being more responsive if 24 GP practitioners were voted in. That's not a given.

As for the 80%, a figure worth repeating, 80% who don't vote, perhaps they're the clever ones.

the silly 20%, myself included may like or dislike RCVS rulings, so I don't think it's got much to do with the voting.

JGW

PS if you wanted to engage more voters, here's a suggestion or two. Why not open up to RFPs, listen, respond and adapt and demonstrate doing so, i.e. link a vote to representaiton? Just a thought.

JGW

Re: End the title MRCVS

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:38:02 GMT

The Magnificent Seven could be the Magnificant 24, if:

1) more practitioners stood for election,

and 2) veterinary surgeons voted for them.

The approx 80% of the MEMBERSHIP who don't bother voting, quite frankly, have only themselves to blame if they dislike College rulings.

Wynne

Re: End the title MRCVS

J G Wray — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 15:58:22 GMT

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]

[quote user="J G Wray"] the sort of eloquent detailed exposition of the virtues of Our RCVS, in a public forum, that Mr S has given us?[/quote]

I'll take that as a compliment, thank - you.

[/quote]

The preface to this remark of mine was whither the Pres? Nope, can't see them anywhere.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Actually its Elizabethan (the current one) dating to 1966 - the opening clause revoking all the previous Charters (of which there were many).[/quote]

Touché. It is Idealistic, even so.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Given that we are currently only 37 days into a two year process I hope you agree its a little early to judge if it has been a success or to decide that the RCVS, 'ain't doing so'. [/quote]

Specious stuff. There is no plan, no path to a new RCVS and it is only 2 years away. I'd like to think there's some order, some common purpose which is steering the transition to a given position and I'd like to know early what that position will be. After all, I like all other RFPs are paying for it. Is it clear, has it been broadcast? Has anyone with authority and accountability articulated the RCVS' "unshackled" look and feel?

Paying for the RCVS fiddling over the next 2 years towards an uncertain outcome looks nuts to me.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]As I've made clear many times my own view is that once the membership of Council is wholly separated from that of the DC it will mean that Council will be freed up to have a much more robust relationship with the statutory committees which will be a much healthier situation than that which we now have.[/quote]

Fine words, but is your view shared by anyone else at RCVS? Furthermore, you only mention the RCVS behaviour toward statutory committees. Is there no place in any Councillors mindset for RCVS and its relationship with RFPs. Councillors seem to have no problem relating all that RCVS does, to itself, but bring the PBI into it and RCVS reverts to type. RCVS preserves RCVS.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]You can still elect the majority of Council - it is however a simple fact that only 7 of the 24 elected members are currently in anything like full time first opinion private practice so that gives us 7 out of 42.[/quote]

I know this stat. It gives me no confidence that RCVS will evolve as I've previously mentioned. Your contributions as one of the seven are noble, but how could they be representative on this basis?

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Those are the people that are elected so one has to accept that is what the profession wants but it is always a surprise to me when I see just how badly practitioners generally do in RCVS elections & then I read all the complaints that the RCVS is too detached from practice! I don't think I'll ever work that one out[/quote]

Careful with this. Mr Hutber was a candidate once

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Fortunately the current 'few' practitioners on Council seem very capable of making a great deal of noise and not an insignificant number of the reforms currently being undertaken by the College stem from their efforts.[/quote]

The Magnificent Seven shouldn't be driving reform alone. If the whole RCVS were more responsive then they could be guided by the RFPs who are in practice - the majority of vets and the RCVS cash cows. They ain't so they won't and the deckchair attendants will come around again in two years time.

What a shame

JGW

Re: End the title MRCVS

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 10:24:34 GMT

I disagree fundamentally with that Wyn. BVA's and BSAVA's argument was ill-informed ("There is no good evidence about this subject" when at the time there were at least 60 relevant published papers) and emotive (I have had a kidney transplant and I wouldn't wish it on a cat"). Interestingly, a very important part of the argument against was the horror prospect of condemning a domestic pet to life-long treatment with those nasty cyclosporin drugs, the very same ones which are now given out like smarties (by one or two of our number) on the vaguest suspicion of an atopy diagnosis. How times change.

I am on the fence wrt renal transplants in cats but having read the literature and seen some cases done and followed up, I remain appalled at the very poor quality of the debate that was led by BVA and BSAVA.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 09:37:45 GMT

The worst ever example (imho ) of Royal College consulting,but not listening came 10 years ago. They consulted on cat kidney transplants. Both BVA and BSAVA were very strongly opposed;for good moraland ethical reasons.

Royal College totally ignored their misgivings-and allowed them anyway!

Wynne

Re: End the title MRCVS

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 08:33:39 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] the sort of eloquent detailed exposition of the virtues of Our RCVS, in a public forum, that Mr S has given us?[/quote]

I'll take that as a compliment, thank - you.

[quote user="J G Wray"]The Royal Charter, a Victorian document,[/quote]

Actually its Elizabethan (the current one) dating to 1966 - the opening clause revoking all the previous Charters (of which there were many).

[quote user="J G Wray"] The LRO is prudent, because of circumstances but it is an opportunity for RCVS to move on unshackled by it's Disciplinary process as well, but it ain't doing so.[/quote]

The LRO came into force on the 1st of July this year - there is a two year transitional period when the DC and PIC will be hybrids - with independently appointed members and members elected by Council - so it (the LRO) will not be fully operation until July 2015. The transitional period was designed to allow for the thorough training and integration of the large influx of new blood whilst maintaining a proper continuity in case management (esp applicable to the PIC). In 2014 the majority of members on the DC will be independents and the PIC is already in that position (having had three independent observers before the beginning of the process). Given that we are currently only 37 days into a two year process I hope you agree its a little early to judge if it has been a success or to decide that the RCVS, 'ain't doing so'. As I've made clear many times my own view is that once the membership of Council is wholly separated from that of the DC it will mean that Council will be freed up to have a much more robust relationship with the statutory committees which will be a much healthier situation than that which we now have.

Yours,

Richard S.

[quote user="J G Wray"]have no influence on the "unshackled" RCVS[/quote]

You can still elect the majority of Council - it is however a simple fact that only 7 of the 24 elected members are currently in anything like full time first opinion private practice so that gives us 7 out of 42. Those are the people that are elected so one has to accept that is what the profession wants but it is always a surprise to me when I see just how badly practitioners generally do in RCVS elections & then I read all the complaints that the RCVS is too detached from practice! I don't think I'll ever work that one out! Fortunately the current 'few' practitioners on Council seem very capable of making a great deal of noise and not an insignificant number of the reforms currently being undertaken by the College stem from their efforts.

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: End the title MRCVS

J G Wray — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 07:38:12 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]J G Wray, perhaps you might like to read the Royal Charter and see what it is all about? I don't really understand your argument other than "I don't like the current system - for no real definite reason - so I want something different - but don't really know why or what that may be."[/quote]

The Royal Charter, a Victorian document, encapsulates ideals, or perhaps a better word is Ideals.

The RCVS has a version of those Ideals which, for all its reorganisation from the regime run by the ex-Registrar, with the compliance of numerous sitting Councillors, is not moving its ideology on, to be transparent, inclusive, approachable, responsive, adaptable, err friendly. The Charter does not proscribe these ideals, something else does. I'm not entirely sure what, but I think it is fear of something, being seen to be a poor regulator for instance, by its sponsoring Ministry.

They are taking on the trappings of other independently regulated groups, some prudent others diificult. The LRO is prudent, because of circumstances but it is an opportunity for RCVS to move on unshackled by it's Disciplinary process as well, but it ain't doing so. Instead it is being seduced by other features of other regulators, specficially outcome focused regulation. It is behaving more like an independent whilst maintaing a cover of a Collegiate organisation belonging to the profession, a self-regulator. That's a sham, which is a bad thing.

Furthermore. those who pay, the RFPs - a RCVS term - have no influence on the "unshackled" RCVS. That's profoundly worng and to return to the Charter, counter to the spirit of the Charter, it's Ideal.

JGW

PS Has anyone heard from any President of the RCVS, current or past, the sort of eloquent detailed exposition of the virtues of Our RCVS, in a public forum, that Mr S has given us?

Re: End the title MRCVS

Martin Whiting — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 06:48:50 GMT

I have to wonder, if there are any new grads on this forum? They spend quite some time studying the purpose of the RCVS, what a "Royal College" means through a Royal Charter (not just a club or a college as seems to be mentioned), they study the separate powers and roles of the RCVS, and how the LRO has now helped assure that those who set the rules for the profession are not those who judge the members who may have broken them. They also study why it needs to be this way and why medicine runs the same way with all of their royal colleges. The only difference is they have a separate GMC and Royal College. we have it rolled into one. They have to pay double for their GMC and they have to pay for their Royal College. we have it in one body. Perhaps this wasn't taught previously, perhaps it hasn't been made clear to members for years now that new grads are taught it?

J G Wray, perhaps you might like to read the Royal Charter and see what it is all about? I don't really understand your argument other than "I don't like the current system - for no real definite reason - so I want something different - but don't really know why or what that may be."

Re: End the title MRCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:57:06 GMT

Richard, thank you very much for your (as always) thoughtful / thought-provoking reply.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Well I would argue that there is immense benefit from membership of the RCVS for its members - the right to practice as vets - but there is even greater benefit to the public who know that Veterinary Surgeons are highly qualified / regulated individuals who they can trust.[/quote]

Yes, but I think the problem is that regulation is not necessarily perceived as a benefit of membership. After all, other professions are regulated without the regulator being a membershiup organisation. I was never an MCAA (Member of the Civil Aviation Authority) for example!

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]The College can and IMO should promote the profession (I should emphasise not the profession's INTERESTS - that's the BVA's job).[/quote]

I'm glad you agree!

But

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]However promoting the profession by ensuring high standards of education, professionalism and clinical skill in (as far as it is possible) an evidence based way is very much the job of a good regulator and College.[/quote]

This seems like a bit of a non sequitur to me. In other words, ensuring high standards does not, in and of itself, promote anything. They are two completely separate things. Ensuring high standards is, well, ensuring high standards. Promoting those high standards would mean, for example, taking out an advert in 'Dogs Today' to advertise the high standards in veterinary practice.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]This is a little like the Life of Brian question 'What have the Romans ever done for me apart from....' [/quote]

That made me laugh out loud.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]setting standards of veterinary education, creating a framework for post graduate professional development (Cert AVP) and now the 'Advanced practitioner', setting simple understandable standards and issuing guidelines, investigating every complaint made against a member of the College and closing those with no merit whilst identifying those who are damaging public confidence in the profession, responding to numerous DEFRA consultations, establishing a veterinary nursing profession, establishing an independently inspected practice standards scheme, keeping an accurate register of veterinary surgeons, recognising achievement through the award of fellowships etc. [/quote]

Yes .... but .... it's a bit like the breakdown on my council tax bill. I recognise that I need a lot of it, but I struggle to get excited about it. And like the local council, I don't think (could well be wrong) that the RCVS really sells the benefits much.

Re: End the title MRCVS

J G Wray — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 19:58:28 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]There is always a problem in all organisations of consulting but not listening, listening but not hearing, and I have no doubt that the RCVS is as guilty as any etc. [/quote]

Are you speaking officially for RCVS?

JGW

Re: End the title MRCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 15:02:27 GMT

Fair enough.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 14:38:44 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Richard's exposition in his last two posts is excellent. Five star job.[/quote]

Thanks Evelyn - you've made my weekend!

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]you can comment, and believe it or not voices are heard.[/quote]

To be frank, many of us do not believe it.

[/quote]

There is always a problem in all organisations of consulting but not listening, listening but not hearing, and I have no doubt that the RCVS is as guilty as any. What I will say is that there is a genuine attempt being made to becoming more responsive, the criticism of the PSS as a 'tick box' scheme has been heard and an enormous amount of work is being done (which I found very impressive) on getting the scheme more 'outcome' focused. Ironically (in the circumstances) criticism of the disciplinary system and the DC has been heard and a fully independent system put in place to replace it & even the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (not known for their friendly judgements) have praised the enormous efforts put into ensuring full DC independence by the RCVS. Sometimes voices are heard but prove to be a minority when the issue is properly debated. It is true that on some issues (for example the requirement to inform the College every year that you haven't moved) that despite intensive rear guard actions by practitioners on Council we are simply in too low numbers to win.

In disciplinary matters the College will invariably be on the back foot as it cannot comment at all on DC decisions within the 28 day Appeal period and secondly by an odd quirk of law it is the RCVS itself which is the respondent in any Appeal (not the DC who made the decision).

After 2015 when the LRO is fully in force there will be a need for a much more robust approach between RCVS and the 'Fitness to Practise Panel' (or what ever they decide to be called), but we're not there as yet.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]there is a powerful faction in Belgravia House which does consider that "unique" means "incorrect" and is doing its best to reduce the representation of the practising veterinary surgeon to a level at which it can never triumph.[/quote]

I genuinely believe that those days are long over. The Council fully accepts that a new VSA isn't on the cards and that we have to make the current Act work. It has been a revelation what can be done where there is a will in the last three years we've introduced:-

The LRO - independent PIC and DC

A Health Protocol so that members with health, addiction and alcohol issues can be safely managed where possible in practice WITHOUT having the trauma of a DC hearing (if they want to go down the protocol route).

A Performance Protocol to do the same as above for members whose clinical standards have fallen the minimum accepted.

A non-statutory Register for VNs with a regulatory mechanism.

A requirement for all practices to meet core standards and all Vets to be able to communicate effectively in an appropriate language.

You may or may not agree with all or some of these reforms but they are all things that the profession has asked for at one time or another.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]doing its best to reduce the representation of the practising veterinary surgeon to a level at which it can never triumph.[/quote]

Unfortunately (from my perspective) I have to say that the voters do that very effectively and efficiently at most elections without any need of help from Belgravia House!.

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 13:57:21 GMT

Richard's exposition in his last two posts is excellent. Five star job.

Just one thing, Richard:

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]you can comment, and believe it or not voices are heard.[/quote]

To be frank, many of us do not believe it. Or rather, we believe that the voices are heard all right, but dismissed as background babble.

I also believe that there is a powerful faction in Belgravia House which does consider that "unique" means "incorrect" and is doing its best to reduce the representation of the practising veterinary surgeon to a level at which it can never triumph.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 08:02:02 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]don't benefit ME. Actually they make life unnecessarily difficult FOR ME. One [/quote]

Mark,

I'm sure that having properly trained VNs who are registered and regulated does help you (for example). However the point you are making is a moot one. All organisations seem to have a habit of 'gold plating' legislation / rules and in the UK we seem to specialise in that. For example for years DEFRA has told us we cannot apply a language test due to 'European Rules' - we now find that isn't actually the case. To a large extent its the job of YOUR elected members to turn back the tide of over regulation. Do you elect the right people? Despite the heavy preponderance of academics on Council when University professors / staff with no experience of practice stand for election YOU invariably elect them. So I guess that's what people want.

The specific instance you mention is interesting. The VMD require that you obtain 'informed consent' before using off licence drugs. The PSS requires you to have a written consent form. Gold plating? Well yes and No. The PSS requirement stems from the College's knowledge of what the public complain about.

The scenario is this - 'Tiddles' dies a particularly unpleasant death under your care. The distraught owner trawls through the records (surely the vet did something wrong Tiddles did die after all and my friend's vet says he would have saved Tiddles). They check all the drugs on the internet and find that one of the drugs used is a human medicine - no doubt thats why Tiddles died. Now convinced of the righteousness of their cause they launch a formal complaint (unfortunately frequently assisted by another vet who confirms what they say). You immediately say 'but I obtained verbal consent to use that drug and fully explained the potential side effects' (or you might say 'but everyone is using that drug I didn't even know it was off licence'). They say, 'the vet is a liar / dishonest / he never said that to me, my friend was with me during the consultation and will give a statement supporting me, and I've recorded all the conversations on my iphone.' That how it goes and the RCVS is dealing with complaints like that all the time. They cannot be closed because the complainant possibly correctly avers that you broke the law, further they now say you are dishonest and are lying when you say you explained that the drug was unlicensed (that's always the real 'conduct issue). The complainant says that the practice is mounting a 'cover up'. Often we end up with the 'he said, she said' scenario but increasingly both vets and complainants produce recordings of conversations (good point to remember clients do record things on their phones these days). HOW VERY MUCH EASIER if you simply produce a signed consent form. All over, complaint closed, embarrassed complainant, vet smells of roses. Same scenario -different outcome. No DC hearing, no months and months of stress, and in fact a mollified (if not happy) complainant.

So you might see that requirement as 'impractical' or 'making your life difficult' - you can just put a general catch all consent on your admission / anaesthetic form (I give permission for an unlicensed drug to be administered if necessary for the welfare of my animal - sort of thing) not ideal but will get you off the hook in a dispute. However the PSS requirement is in fact the result of feeding back years of experience in complaint handling. I am frequently very impressed with the standard of record keeping by practices and of their compliance with this rule and I couldn't begin to count the number of complaints that the PIC has been able to firmly close because of it. So if you are the subject of a complaint complying with that 'impractical rule' could save you weeks, months, years of heart ache.

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]not one of them has improved my life as a practitioner.[/quote]

Well I think we all feel that about the modern world - there always seems to be new rules, problems, and someone just trying to make things difficult but I have to say that I think that life in practice is considerably better than it was 25 years ago when I started - some (by no means all) of those things do stem from the College.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Mark Holmes — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 00:36:31 GMT

But Richard all the things you have listed as being done by the RCVS for me, don't benefit ME. Actually they make life unnecessarily difficult FOR ME. One example... The VMD has no requirement for off license consent forms. The RCVS get hold of it and make a simple issue impractical, largely unworkable and functioning in a way counter to its stated aims. So I see very few ways that the RCVS works for ME. Yes it has done all the things you describe - not one of them has improved my life as a practitioner.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Richard Stephenson — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 23:07:31 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]would require a 'suicidal' change in the VSA.[/quote]

Arlo,

To some extent it is an academic point since DEFRA have no money to sponsor a new Act - and we are talking £millions - BUT IF it were to be the case that a new VSA was enacted it has been made clear that it would be a Veterinary SERVICES Act. For all its faults the current VSA gives vets the whole cake with 'exemptions' from it. A new act would probably list what the government considers to be acts of veterinary surgery.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]By that, I mean that most people think of membership as something which they benefit from and derive a sense of 'belonging'. [/quote]

Well I would argue that there is immense benefit from membership of the RCVS for its members - the right to practice as vets - but there is even greater benefit to the public who know that Veterinary Surgeons are highly qualified / regulated individuals who they can trust. Interestingly when the College researched public opinion about 4 years ago the message fed back was, 'we don't want to know anything about how the RCVS works or is structured we just want to know that it is there and will deal with any problems'.

I'm sure that if we started with a blank sheet of paper we probably would have a 'regulator' like the GMC AND a Royal College (perhaps on the lines of one of the medical Royal Colleges). The question has always been, how would the College be funded? the current situation of a Royal College / Regulator is a unique veterinary solution to the problem of regulation (I think we need to be careful not to infer from that 'incorrect' just because it is unique). Despite what is currently being said by and large the system has worked well, we have extremely low retention fees (compared to other medical regulators), complaints are dealt with faster and more efficiently than most other regulators (and I know that is NOT good enough - its still painfully slow), and the RCVS is far more open and transparent than most. After 170 years of a combined regulator / college formalised in the 1948 Act and again in the 1966 one it would be virtually impossible to separate them equitably - for example there is very good reason to believe that the College properties belong to the Royal College NOT its regulatory function.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I've always argued that the RCVS should do more for its members. For example that it should be more vocal in the media about the good that vets do. [/quote]

The College can and IMO should promote the profession (I should emphasise not the profession's INTERESTS - that's the BVA's job). However promoting the profession by ensuring high standards of education, professionalism and clinical skill in (as far as it is possible) an evidence based way is very much the job of a good regulator and College. Further it is clearly in the public interest to have a strong well educated properly regulated profession to care for the Nations Animals (and do all those other things vets do). Thus in as far as the whole reason for being of a regulator is to promote its profession through standards I entirely agree with your last sentence. What the RCVS should not do is get involved with things like how much practices should charge etc.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]"Why does MY College not do more for ME?"[/quote]

This is a little like the Life of Brian question 'What have the Romans ever done for me apart from....' In this case apart from, setting standards of veterinary education, creating a framework for post graduate professional development (Cert AVP) and now the 'Advanced practitioner', setting simple understandable standards and issuing guidelines, investigating every complaint made against a member of the College and closing those with no merit whilst identifying those who are damaging public confidence in the profession, responding to numerous DEFRA consultations, establishing a veterinary nursing profession, establishing an independently inspected practice standards scheme, keeping an accurate register of veterinary surgeons, recognising achievement through the award of fellowships etc. NOW you can pick big holes in every single one of those things I've listed some won't like the PSS, some will feel the standards set for Vet Schools are too low (I would be one of them), some will think that the disciplinary system is too slow and erratic. The point is that currently it is YOUR College - you can comment, and believe it or not voices are heard. Alternate methods of regulation (see the banking sector and the health care regulators) have been notable and very public failures. So whilst the RCVS is by no means perfect I think 'better the devil you know.....'

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:36:22 GMT

Dear Lord Halifax

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: End the title MRCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:27:56 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]The RCVS is there for the tuppenyfiggers. If the Man on the Clapham Omnibus were asked what does "Member of the etc." means and then asked what "Registered veterinary etc." means, who thinks MRCVS or RVS would produce the better answer?[/quote]

The answer on the Clapham Omnibus would be "Yer what? Haven't a clue, mate."

[quote user="J G Wray"]to use my son's lingo, "And.....?"[/quote]

Fortunately your son is not running the country.

To use my wife's occasional reply: "Doesn't matter......" (but you have to get the emphasis and tone just right which is very difficult in writing). Two words, very neatly saying "if you really can't understand that, there's not much point in trying to pursue the subject".

[quote user="J G Wray"]I'm impressed there are stout defenders of the Membership club in Wales.[/quote]

I'm so flattered that you are impressed.

[quote user="J G Wray"]I'm not impressed they're anti-reform, because it's naïve.[/quote]

Do you mean reform is naive, or being anti-reform is naive?

Not that the answer is important, because I am not opposed to reform, although I can't speak for anyone else.

Re: End the title MRCVS

J G Wray — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:14:42 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]If one was into reading tea-leaves and other such wisdom then one could infer much from JGW's choice of cultural and historic references here - Bruce Springsteen, The EDL, national soccer and the Jam (is that one cultural or historic??)[/quote]

Weeeeeell if you want to know how I came up with this list, it's errrr, I hesitate to say this, all about, um, context, don't you know?

I read the no surrender posting from the furthest part of mainland Wales, the no compromise line and I thought immediately of the EDL, because they don't compromise, or move with the times or tolerate anything other than what they deem "tradition". The Bruce Springsteen thing came next 'cos he's so rock'n'roll just like Mr Barbour Hill. The soccer thing was a rowdy reference I suppose and the Jam thing is wrong 'cos it's "Beat Surrender" I apologise for that.

JGW

Re: End the title MRCVS

J G Wray — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:03:15 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Yes, that's something that an outsider may find hard to understand. (An intelligent and thoughtful outsider. The general public don't give a tuppenny fig.)[/quote]

The RCVS is there for the tuppenyfiggers. If the Man on the Clapham Omnibus were asked what does "Member of the etc." means and then asked what "Registered veterinary etc." means, who thinks MRCVS or RVS would produce the better answer?

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]But the fact is we do have our own Royal College and we are members of it. [/quote]

to use my son's lingo, "And.....?"

I'm impressed there are stout defenders of the Membership club in Wales. I'm not impressed they're anti-reform, because it's naïve.

The RCVS has placed the disciplinary stuff off to one side and independent. It has a choice now whether to become more collegiate, and inclusive or maintain its position, forever remote.

The ancien regime is still deeply entrenched at RCVS in the personnel and the silent Councillors Mr Ness referred to. They haven't changed their outlook or attitude unfortunately, they've just rejigged their admin and no one is really taken in by it. We are RFPs and, if we're really honest and look at ourselves through our clients' eyes RVS's. MRCVS is hollow and little more than a fondly held badge. If it isn't then it is only up to the RCVS to prove otherwise. I don't think they'll bother.

JGW

Re: End the title MRCVS

Malcolm Ness — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:01:49 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]This is marvellously stirring stuff . No surrender is the motto of the English Defence League. It's also a song by Bruce Springsteen and the first line of a song from the Jam a chant from English football fans ( ref the IRA).........[/quote]

The motto, "No surrender" has been used by many individuals and groups over the years including the Orangemen of Ulster and Central Scotland, the Diggers at St Georges Hill, Surrey in 1649, the Suffragettes, the Scottish Covenanters, various sides in various African freedom wars/rebellions.

If one was into reading tea-leaves and other such wisdom then one could infer much from JGW's choice of cultural and historic references here - Bruce Springsteen, The EDL, national soccer and the Jam (is that one cultural or historic??)

Re: End the title MRCVS

Bob Russell — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:51:32 GMT

I am a bit old fashioned. I worked hard to become a member of a select 'club' and that is the RCVS.

To maintain my membership I have to behave in a certain manner and standard. The primary benefit of being a member is that I am allowed to perform my duties as a veterinary surgeon (and make a living!).

My expectation is that the 'club' will maintain proper standards for all other members of the club. I take my responsibilities very seriously (as do the vast majority of vets) but I do expect to be regulated in a robust but fair way. That is the RCVS's responsibility.

I have to say the recent bizarre DC decisions have left me doubting the balance is right.

A reason to get the RCVS right not to lose the MRCVS title.

Re: End the title MRCVS

Richard Carter — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:44:11 GMT

Scrap the monopoly for the RCVS in the VS Act. More of a hindrance than help with regard to the setup and running of the RCVS if reports are to be believed. Then require vets who are in a clinical sphere to belong to an accredited organisation responsible for quality control to be able to perform acts of veterinary surgery. Then with the possibility of alternative organisations, perhaps the current RCVS crowd could better explain why they are the ones to hold the keys to the kingdom, they could 'modernise' as has been clearly the intention over of the last few years, be free of the restrictive wording of the law and would have to hold onto members/fee payers due to quality of service, not obligation by law. If we like what we see, the RCVS will survive as the premier organisation for veterinary quality control (and that used to be for the whole world).

Re: End the title MRCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:31:48 GMT

Thank you for your immensely useful and thoughtful contribution, JG.

Are you getting a bit bored with this discussion which you initiated?

Re: End the title MRCVS

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:26:38 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

All the same, it has always seemed to me (an outsider) that given that the College's role is to regulate the profession for the benefit of the public, there is something, well, almost oxymoronic about the title.

By that, I mean that most people think of membership as something which they benefit from and derive a sense of 'belonging'.

But the RCVS's primary role is to regulate in the interests of the public. Sure, to have a well-regulated profession benefits the members of that profession, but it's not an easy sell (be a member of our organisation that exists to strike you off!).

[/quote]

Yes, that's something that an outsider may find hard to understand. (An intelligent and thoughtful outsider. The general public don't give a tuppenny fig.)

The RCVS existed long before it was given its role in the 1966 Act. There is no fundamental reason why it can not continue to perform other activities in support of the profession.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I've always argued that the RCVS should do more for its members. For example that it should be more vocal in the media about the good that vets do. Champion the profession. More recently, that it does more to use DC decisions to help others avoid the same fate. The answer that always comes back is that doing anything which supports practitioners like this would in some way erode the College's credibility with the public as a regulator.

So we have an organisation of which veterinary surgeons are a member and feel some entitlement to benefit from, but which seems to do little for them. That sets the organisation up for a combative relationship characterised by, at best, disgruntlement, and at worst resentment: "Why does MY College not do more for ME?"

[/quote]

Quite so. Thank you, Arlo.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]It's all about setting expectations. If vets were RVS and not MsRCVS, then nobody would expect anything from the College other than to be regulated.[/quote]

I see your point. But the fact is we do have our own Royal College and we are members of it.