The President's Response - does it help?

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:09:03 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]

Sorry Jonathon, I have seen your latest post but just wanted to reply to this one quickly.

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Before the President's intervention 1500 votes. After ~ 1800. I wonder what RCVS would regard as a "critical" threshold for "special" and separate consideration?

JGW

[/quote]

I originally had in mind to close the petition on 17th Feb as that is when the 'call for evidence' closes, but as you suggest, perhaps it should be dealt with in its own right if nothing changes at the Standards Committee 24-7 review meeting., so I will leave it open for now. Thank you for that suggestion. Over and out

[/quote]

The last word to go to the remarkable Ms Dyer

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:37:13 GMT

I really can't be bothered to re-write exactly the same thing, so, like Gillian, I'm (with great saddness ) bowing out.

Wynne

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Phil Hyde — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:34:13 GMT

I apologise for re-posting this here, but the fact that the rcvs has stated that home-visits are not mandatory DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

The rcvs have stated again and again that a no home-visit policy is FORBIDDEN.

This must mean that, in certain undefined circumstances, HOME-VISITS ARE MANDATORY.

Explain, please.

Phil

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Jo Dyer — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:20:19 GMT

Sorry Jonathon, I have seen your latest post but just wanted to reply to this one quickly.

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Before the President's intervention 1500 votes. After ~ 1800. I wonder what RCVS would regard as a "critical" threshold for "special" and separate consideration?

JGW

[/quote]

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:13:18 GMT

As the OP of this thread I would like to close this now with Ms Dyer's comments as the summary

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Jo Dyer — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:56:07 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I wonder if the petitioners were hoping for more.[/quote]

Well, I can't answer that one for the other 1882 but I am pleased with the way the petition is going so far. I was hoping for 10 signatures to avoid total humiliation and 20 in my ideal scenario. (Thank you Arlo for moving things on from the 72 signatures pre your email!) I tried contacting the RCVS with my questions in August last year and a couple of times subsequently but was just metaphorically patted on the head and told not to worry myself, so clearly something else had to be done.

The fact that Neil Smith has acknowledged receipt of the petition emails is enough for me at this stage. I notice more than half of his statement is a face-saving exercise undermining the use of the word 'mandatory'. However, the emails sent to RCVS do not use the M word at all but ask for specific changes to the code. Incidentally these changes would bring the code up to date in line with the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which places responsibility for animals firmly with their owner.

I felt it was necessary to have a clear message as the title for the petition so that everyone knows what the proposed wording change aims to do, but RCVS have always maintained that they are not influenced or aware of anything that is not directly addressed to them. Clearly those goalposts change if the RC see it as being in their interests.

There is a mention somewhere in this topic of RCVS being 'bullied' by petitioners. This is nonsense. The bullying has always seemed to be in the other direction to me, and central to my desire to get things changed so that vets do not feel so vulnerable. We are simply making our views known, as requested by the 'call for evidence'.

At the end of the day, you can carry on talking about things forever, and possibly just enjoying the moan, or you can do your best to change things for the better. I cannot see how all the reasonable and well stated comments made on the petition can be totally ignored and there be no change at all, but maybe I'm being unduly optimistic.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:17:01 GMT

Before the President's intervention 1500 votes. After ~ 1800. I wonder what RCVS would regard as a "critical" threshold for "special" and separate consideration?

JGW

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Glen McIntosh — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:13:11 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]As for placing animal welfare on a pedestal, that is open to defintion. Vegans might have a definition which might not be every vets' definition for instance, so sloganising isn't all that helpful in this discussion, as in "my standards are better then yours, so there! [tongue poking out]"[/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]AIn't that the truth, but with the requirement removed they won't be able to hang a vet without getting the complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. You may have noted that RCVS claim that with the current wording all a vet has to do is justify their choice. The onus is on the accused to prove their innocence. With the requirement removed the onus shifts to the prosecution as it does in any other legal arena....[/quote]

Well put.

And I think that is all that anybody wants.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:55:55 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]In the aftermath of this success, who thinks RCVS will do anything of this sort? Watch them run for the trees.[/quote]

Sadly, it is their MO. I hope the petitioners don't feel too let down.

JGW

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:52:06 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]Does anybody else worry about the repercussions of removing all requirement to perform a visit, for any reason?[/quote]

Well at a guess 1500 or so people have. Is that enough for you?

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]Many large groups/practices, especially those run by non-vets, will bring in a 'no-visit' policy - as this will make the logistics of running their practice both cheaper and easier.[/quote]

Are you sure?I'm an independent vet as well , but I have no fear of the Corporate bogey being roused here. In fact I think it's a bit of smoke.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]Vets on the front line in these practices will no longer have the option of going with their opinion- so the occasional cases which do need our help on site will be refused.[/quote]

Are you sure? You know the rulebook as given in this petition doesn't forbid a vet from doing visits. Perhaps an enterprising independent might even offer a visitng service to groups of practices The practices book in visits for this subcontractor to perform for instance.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]The risk of complaint in these practices will increase.[/quote]

Why? If it isn't a reason for PI proceeding then it doesn't become a complaint.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]As we are still professionals, we are still bound by our oath to work in an ethical manner and act independently of practice protocol. We must put animal welfare above all else except our own safety.[/quote]

What if practice protocol were written in a manner which allowed vets discretion unencumbered by a Damoclean sanction? Would that be so bad? It would fit neatly with a Corporate Social Responsibility policy a modern interpretation of self-regulation. As for placing animal welfare on a pedestal, that is open to defintion. Vegans might have a definition which might not be every vets' definition for instance, so sloganising isn't all that helpful in this discussion, as in "my standards are better then yours, so there! [tongue poking out]"

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]Therefore, there is still no guarantee that the RCVS will agree that a visit wasn't needed on welfare grounds[/quote]

AIn't that the truth, but with the requirement removed they won't be able to hang a vet without getting the complainant to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. You may have noted that RCVS claim that with the current wording all a vet has to do is justify their choice. The onus is on the accused to prove their innocence. With the requirement removed the onus shifts to the prosecution as it does in any other legal arena....

JGW

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

David Mills — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:28:57 GMT

It is pathetically ironic, isn't it:

1. That originally the RCVS released a press statement saying there had been a 'limited' response to its consultation, to vet surgeon.org, the largest online community, where there are pages of discussion on that very topic;

2. The RCVS had an avowed aim to 'interact' with the profession more, and receive feedback, electronically, and make it easier to access people at RCVS.

3. They have a communications manager and customer service manager for 2).

And yet it takes a petition such as that produced for them to come out and say...it will be treated just like anything else.

I don't think they're stupid. They're well aware of the furore on here. I'm sure Mr G knows how often they log on and what pages they visit. They don't want anything to do with it. To think the Colonel will do anything but delay it, churn this up, spit it out on technicalities is pure fallacy. As Mr Wray has pointed out, they want to give the impression of interacting with RFPs as this is what's expected. They aren't listening because of the institutional insistence that it's still just a noisy few.

I suggested on the Chikosi thread ages ago a Parliament-style online petition system whereby a certain number of signatories would trigger a debate at Council. This petition's success (although I'm firmly in the disparate disagree camp) has shown how effective this could be for 'listening' to the vets out there. In the aftermath of this success, who thinks RCVS will do anything of this sort? Watch them run for the trees.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:08:49 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]1. RCVS remove the requirement to visit or suspend it for 3 years. They have responded to those who fund them on this specific issue and put in place a measure designed to protect all practising RFPs. They will have demonstrated responsiveness and concern. Their stock with petitioners/RFPs will rise. Trust will emerge.[/quote]

Does anybody else worry about the repercussions of removing all requirement to perform a visit, for any reason?

Many large groups/practices, especially those run by non-vets, will bring in a 'no-visit' policy - as this will make the logistics of running their practice both cheaper and easier.

Vets on the front line in these practices will no longer have the option of going with their opinion- so the occasional cases which do need our help on site will be refused.

The risk of complaint in these practices will increase. As we are still professionals, we are still bound by our oath to work in an ethical manner and act independently of practice protocol. We must put animal welfare above all else except our own safety. Therefore, there is still no guarantee that the RCVS will agree that a visit wasn't needed on welfare grounds. The difference is that the vet being disciplined may actually agree with them.......

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:56:42 GMT

If the wording of the petition was more accurate, I would absolutely agree with you. But many agree, even some signatories, that the wording of the petition seems to say that the public can demand a home visit, and that vets must comply or they will be struck off. If that were the case, I would be happy to sign it myself.

That's why I asked Jo to consider wording the petition more accurately before publishing it. By being inaccurate, it has now weakened her argument.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:45:56 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Beats"]I do wonder if a large petition of 1500 vets [/quote]

They are not all vets......

[/quote]

Does that worry you, seeing MsotP supporting the petitioners' case? I think it kind of disarms the argument that this is a purely self interested exercise.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:39:35 GMT

[quote user="Beats"]I do wonder if a large petition of 1500 vets (when only 3000 odd vote each year in the elections) might be harder to sweep under a carpet?[/quote]

As I see it

there are three possible outcomes from this petition

1. RCVS remove the requirement to visit or suspend it for 3 years. They have responded to those who fund them on this specific issue and put in place a measure designed to protect all practising RFPs. They will have demonstrated responsiveness and concern. Their stock with petitioners/RFPs will rise. Trust will emerge.

In turn RCVS will be concerned about some loss of status, some loss of high ground relating to animal welfare and control of the profession, by being bullied into a position by petitioners using a tactic which might be repeated. They will also worry about the creation of a problem of care, currently addressed by vets and should a complaint about poor care come their way it will place the onus on the Complainant and RCVS to prove the wrongdoing of failure to visit and that will be new. The key words here are loss of status, worry and new.

2. RCVS find a new form of words which is still not a removal of requirement. In other words, the status quo wrapped up in words and given a meeja spin. There would be thanks for contributing to the overall consultation process and a statement issued with a form of words which begins “Council believes….” Petitioners will enjoy no enhancement in safety or perception of safety. RCVS’ lack of deed rather than word will only harm their reputation with an emerging and crucial demographic amongst the profession, who have found a voice in this petition. Trust will fall further and discontent will increase. The areas of discontent will spread and RCVS, being untrustworthy, will have less control over what is said and done. With their net yield of inaction RCVS will radicalise Petitioners/RFPs.

On the plus side for RCVS, RCVS will still have what they think is control. It will have seen off the bullying from petitioners. It will have ticked the box in professional governance handbook called "consultation". The key words here are think is control

3. The consultation runs its course and nothing changes. Then petitioners and all RFPs will truly know whose College the RCVS is.

RCVS will have demonstrated CONTROL. The key word here is CONTROL and that’s seductive.

JGW

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:39:13 GMT

[quote user="Beats"]

So I don't know if all these folks are getting lots of individual emails from vets and ignoring them, or if there just isn't the support out there?

I do wonder if a large petition of 1500 vets (when only 3000 odd vote each year in the elections) might be harder to sweep under a carpet?

[/quote]

Politicians must spend a large part of their "working" day ignoring things.

And don't forget, a large number of practice owners will have worked out that if they use the expensive drugs their profits are going to be effortlessly bigger.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:35:00 GMT

[quote user="Beats"]I do wonder if a large petition of 1500 vets [/quote]

They are not all vets......

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Beats — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:27:13 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I did. I went on and on and on about it. Did i get any support?[/quote]

Do you think we're in a minority or just that no-one like Jo Dyer co-ordinated such folk as you and I to a cohesive agreed submission with enough support behind it from the profession to make the RCVS take notice?

I have written the odd letter before with limited success:

BVA - told me that it was not a view that their medicines policy group (containing at least one pharmaceutical industry member if I remember correctly, and perhaps only 2 small animal practioners, both in referral work...) shared (I saved myself £10 a month and left...)

RCVS - told me that they did not have an opinion and were not a source of informed opinion on veterinary matters such as pharmacology but a vet had to follow the VMD's rules, then proceeded to publish a letter in the Guardian from the then President explaining why it really mattered to use vet-licensed drugs for pets

BVU - recognised the problem and prepared to make a stand against it but I couldn't bring myself to join Unite...

VMD - I have provided thoughtful comments to their annual consultations - never heard back so far as I remember.

Office for Fair Trading (the veterinary medicines department - you know the one that had the requirement to publish a list of 10 most sold generic drugs and their prices for all those years - surely they'll understand an argument of unfair competition preventing an informed choice to a member of the public of either doxycline capsules at 10p or Ronaxan at £1...) - eventually replied to tell me to take my dog to another vet

My local MEP - never replied.

A local Green Party MLA - interested, replied, but didn't get too far.

So I don't know if all these folks are getting lots of individual emails from vets and ignoring them, or if there just isn't the support out there?

I do wonder if a large petition of 1500 vets (when only 3000 odd vote each year in the elections) might be harder to sweep under a carpet?

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:04:04 GMT

[quote user="Beats"]I would assume that no-one else cared about having their hands tied behind their backs with this "cascade" when it comes to small animals,[/quote]

I did. I went on and on and on about it. Did i get any support?

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:02:04 GMT

[quote user="Beats"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]This is easy. RCVS would bat this away as being the VMD's remit not theirs. RCVS advice is VMD's policy etc. so go to VMD.[/quote]

I see your point. But if its not their department then should they be providing supporting guidance at all then?

Are the RCVS not allowed to provide their own supporting guidance?

I'd like something more along the lines of:

"Choice of medicines:

The RCVS recognises that there are legal restrictions in place which prevent the veterinary professional working with dogs and cats from presenting a fully informed choice to owners on medicines to include factors that may be relevant to the patient's owner, such as the cost.

As it is a criminal act to provide such a service to pet owners, the RCVS cannot stipulate that vets should be forced to offer such an informed range of options regarding medicine choice to owners, however any vet choosing to do so in the interests of either the pet being treated or the owner of that pet would not be guilty of professional misconduct where they are found to be fulfilling their duties to the best of their ability under sections 1 & 2 of the code.

The RCVS understands that there is moral conflict to the professional in such circumstances, and it is not always possible to comply with all of the following sections of the Code in respect to the treatment of pet animals under the current UK legislative environment, so a moral compromise on the part of the professional, who believes that an pet or its owner would be best served by a full and unbiased professional range of medicine options where factors such as cost are considered fully, is inevitable in at least one of the following:

"1.1 Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals."

"2.1 Veterinary surgeons must be open and honest with clients and respect their needs and requirements."

"2.2 Veterinary surgeons must provide independent and impartial advice..."

"6.4 Veterinary surgeons must comply with legislation relevant to the provision of veterinary services."

Specifically, it should be noted that section 6.4 of the Code does not automatically trump other sections such as 1.1, 2.1 & 2.2 listed above.

[/quote]

I could not have put it better.

Will it happen? Hollow laugh.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Beats — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:03:08 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]This is easy. RCVS would bat this away as being the VMD's remit not theirs. RCVS advice is VMD's policy etc. so go to VMD.[/quote]

I see your point. But if its not their department then should they be providing supporting guidance at all then?

Are the RCVS not allowed to provide their own supporting guidance?

I'd like something more along the lines of:

"Choice of medicines:

"1.1 Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals."

"2.1 Veterinary surgeons must be open and honest with clients and respect their needs and requirements."

"2.2 Veterinary surgeons must provide independent and impartial advice..."

"6.4 Veterinary surgeons must comply with legislation relevant to the provision of veterinary services."

Specifically, it should be noted that section 6.4 of the Code does not automatically trump other sections such as 1.1, 2.1 & 2.2 listed above.

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Bob Russell — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:40:12 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Complacent? The RCVS has made decisions for years... with little or no attempt to seek views of the profession at large. Complacent that they will not be questioned or scrutinised.[/quote]

Do you think RCVS see the petition as a threat to order and are now pigeonholing it?

JGW

[/quote]

I suspect they would like to if they could. Push the politician to be the face of the RCVS and everyone else stay silent!

Sadly the cynic in me does not expect much change to happen that has not already been decided.

The cascade argument was lost before most of us realised what was going to happen. I started a petition in my early days on VetSurgeon. It got a good response but was aimed at the VMD more than RCVS. No victory achieved there but I did not even get a reply from my MEP. Probably out massaging his expense figures!

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:22:52 GMT

Do you think RCVS see the petition as a threat to order and are now pigeonholing it?

JGW

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:19:56 GMT

[quote user="Beats"]Or does there have to be a consultation first before they would take note of any petition?[/quote]

This is easy. RCVS would bat this away as being the VMD's remit not theirs. RCVS advice is VMD's policy etc. so go to VMD. NOw they have a cosy with BVA every year, so having a chat with BVA might get you further.

As for the need for consultation first before a petition is noticed it begs the question whether, if there had been no consultation extant the RCVS would have just taken the issue straight to Council, without all the other process.

I hope the petitioners are not too disappointed with what RCVS process does to them.

JGW

Re: The President's Response - does it help?

Bob Russell — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:15:40 GMT

Big weakness in the petition is that it is seeking to remove mandatory house visits when there is no mandatory requirement to visit. A pretty big weakness in my opinion but not to the point that the petition is of reduced value.

Complacent? The RCVS has made decisions for years (many of which you have rightly questioned) with little or no attempt to seek views of the profession at large. Complacent that they will not be questioned or scrutinised.

How often has any discussion had such a response in such a short time?

Yes I believe the petitioners are hoping for much more!