Representation

Re: Representation

Anthony Todd — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:18:37 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Sorry but the above is not what I would say. I'd say it like this:[/quote]

Come on red-starrer, have the wit to give reasons! Or is it personal?

Re: Representation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:55:18 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Considered policies will be more likely to be changed by short-term populism, which has always been notoriously fickle.[/quote]

I take your point, Wynne, and I agree that in the faster moving world we live in, steps will increasingly have to be taken to slow things down a bit, for that very reason.

Then again, you say that 'considered policies will be likely changed'.

One of the things that stands out about this petition is how it has led to that part of the Code being considered by more people in 48 hours than at any time before or after its original publication!

There is of course a difference in the value of a lot of people giving something their cursory consideration, vs a small number giving their detailed consideration. I am not sure one is more valuable than the other. I think they are both important.

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]Arlo - the wording of the petition was available on the forum for feedback before I set it up, because I wanted it to be as democratic as possible. [/quote]

Jo I wasn't having a pop at you - on the contrary, I'm your number one fan! I just think that one possible improvement for future petitions would be for them to go through a more formal scrutineering than just posting in the forum (where it is impossible to measure how many people have actually considered it properly).

Re: Representation

Anthony Todd — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:58:09 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

I'll do a second post so you can red-star me twice! I suspect BVA, BSAVA, SPVS realise that the wording of the code is just fine as it is, and remain disappointed that the membership cannot interpret said code in the way it is written. I've not spoken to a vet I know face to face who doesn't think it's unacceptable to sit on one's bottom for 30 minutes whilst an animal suffers. Back in a big circle.

[/quote]

Sorry but the above is not what I would say. I'd say it like this:

I suspect most vets and members of the BVA, BSAVA, SPVS, realise that the wording of the code can be interpreted as just fine as it is, but membership, in light of Chikosi cannot have confidence in it's future interpretation because of the interpretation by the DC and consequences of Chikosi.

No vet I know would sit on their bottom for 30 minutes unless he or she realised that, having persuaded and outlined the benefits to the animal, and that such course of action may save the animal's life if the owner rushed the animal in and given the necessary easy instructions for the owner so to do.

"Please stay on the line and I'll guide you through it, in the meantime my trained nurse will get things ready for your arrival"

Re: Representation

Jo Dyer — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:58:00 GMT

Arlo - the wording of the petition was available on the forum for feedback before I set it up, because I wanted it to be as democratic as possible. 2 people said it should have a No option, 18 said it was fine as it was, but presumably many more saw it and didn't suggest a change. As you say, thousands of people have access here. I was only expecting between 10 and 20 'signatures' anyway :) And sometimes you just have to go for what you think is right, even if it's not perfect (not easy for us vets....)

Re: Representation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:33:22 GMT

Arlo. I think you're right in saying things have changed. My doubt is whether they've changed for the better. I think not - or at least not in the long term. Considered policies will be more likely to be changed by short-term populism, which has always been notoriously fickle.

Wynne

Re: Representation

Bob Russell — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:29:29 GMT

I admit to signing the petition despite its poor title. I know that visits are not mandatory and never have been.

What the petition suggests to me is that vets now consider the onus is going to be on them to justify refusal to visit (not inappropriate IMO) but that there is a chance that a judgement on that decision at DC may be unreasonable.

A lot of the concerns reflect back on a remarkably poor DC decision.

The good thing about the whole situation is that the DC can be pretty sure every decision they make is going to be very publicly scrutinised and with luck they will learn to be a lot more careful with their comments in future.

I believe this is a real crisis of confidence in the powers that be at Belgravia House.

Re: Representation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:00:04 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]To be honest I suspect a great many have signed the petition due to the poor title.[/quote]

Anecdotally, many have signed DESPITE disagreeing with the use of the term mandatory in the title.

Others, as you know, believe the use of 'mandatory' was entirely appropriate.

But it doesn't change my point about the survey demonstrating that there is now a different way of doing things.

As it happens, I would agree with you that it would be desirable for the wording of a petition to be considered by more people before being put to the vote.

I also think the process through which the the petition is submitted and responded to needs to be formalised.

Re: Representation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:53:09 GMT

Micheal I suggest your friend writes directly to RCVS to point out her error.

Wynne

Re: Representation

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:52:19 GMT

Re: Representation

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:50:01 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]OF COURSE there are flaws with Jo's petition. But my god, doesn't it make you think? Something fundamental has just happened. Perhaps there is a different way of going about things now.[/quote]

To be honest I suspect a great many have signed the petition due to the poor title.

I was speaking to a vet the other day. The subject came up and she said she's signed the petition. Her words were: "I didn't know RCVS had made visits compulsory". I explained they hadn't. She's seen the title in her Facebook news-feed and just gone straight to sign at the link, hadn't read the wording of the petition and had no idea what the code said.

It's this Facebook generation where everyone clicks on, "likes", "shares", downloads the same silly game without actually giving the content much thought. It's become almost ingrained - you see a petition against mandatory house visits by vets and you sign it.

Re: Representation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:35:43 GMT

I wonder whether the Internet means we are about to see (or should think about) a complete change in the way that members of the professions are represented.

The old 'top down' model involved representation by an Association, comprised of a small number of the great and good who would decide how to allocate resources and then inform members, originally by post.

Has Jo Dyer shown everyone something perhaps even more important than the specific issue she is campaigning on: that it is possible to completely circumvent the traditional representative organisations and appeal direct to the organ-grinder.

The things that stand out to me about Jo's petition are:

I have no doubt that it HAS been noticed by EVERYONE that needs to see it. I really doubt there is anyone at the RCVS that is not aware of it.
Not just aware of it. I think this petition carried FAR more weight than a single councillor putting their hand up at a meeting.
What a wonderfully democratic exercise it was. Really. Started by a common or garden practitioner. Touched on something that many feel strongly about. Went viral. Flourished.
The sheer numbers. How exciting to see everyone engaging in a way that nobody EVER does when it comes to electing council members.

OF COURSE there are flaws with Jo's petition. But my god, doesn't it make you think? Something fundamental has just happened. Perhaps there is a different way of going about things now.

Re: Representation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:24:34 GMT

It's a two way thing. I attended the last ever proper BVA Congress at Liverpool. Very disappointing attendance. If veterinary surgeons can't be bothered to attend BVA then they can't complain if BVA doesn't reflect their views. What chance have they given it to even know their views?

Wynne

Re: Representation

Stuart McArthur B Vet Med MRCVS — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:10:33 GMT

I understand some people will be very passionate about BVA and BSAVA and go out of their way to defend them.... but they have underachieved with respect to the threat we meet in this thread specifically, - and they have spectacularly underachieved.

Smoke and mirrors can attempt to big up our Associations - but recently they have been dysfunctional and in one case worked at the limits of the acceptable definition of charity.

What did BVA/BSAVA do for us during Chikosigate - apart from BVA making and issue over a soggy blanket.
Why are we sorting out a 24/7 petition ourselves when they singly or united could be representing us.....
We are so unfamiliar with decent representation that we now see their mission as basic and even "apolitical".
Can we ask them to stop attending important regulator meetings in future and sitting in on all these government sessions if they are now claiming to be "apolitical" and dont want to act for our benefit?

Historically we have been severely under-represented by our Associations. Now is a time to take this to them and ask them to raise their game.

It is not nasty regulators that have created the distress we now have with 24/7 and the lack of care and support for each other that we have within our culture ...it is the lack of continuity and purpose that has developed in both our peak Associations since 2005 when the VMR were created.

BVA and BSAVA came to the regulator meetings at the time, but let it all wash over their heads last time around when our present bad coding was published.

I quote BVA values ........>>

Our guiding principles. They are timeless and are embedded in all we do.

our members are at the heart of everything we do
we work with individual members and our divisions to speak with one voice
we use our influence to promote and further the interests of the veterinary profession
we strive to deliver quality valued services for our members
<<<

BSAVA mainly seems to say

>>>>

BSAVA .. values?

Encourages veterinary surgeons and nurses to develop their professional skills
Runs numerous continuing education courses and seminars throughout the UK
Hosts the biggest annual small animal conference in the world, attracting over 7,000 delegates<<<

I find item 3 embarrassing!

Is BSAVA now just a rich dominant publishing house run by elite vets?

Hasn't money that could be used to support us been going in the wrong direction to be able to support us - Lets look at the BSAVA accounts again - but a bit deeper this time ?

Do BSAVA really want to boast about the biggest most expensive conference in the world ? or do we want them to invest something additional and new in developing a new generation of supported vets with a decent career path. Do we want a profession that is well supported during the Royal Charter, well supported during the 24/7 review and well supported during the PSS review. Do we want our Associations governed by people who put the welfare of RCVS and Association members at the top of their priorities and who don't walk away from difficult political situations.

Or do we want more monopoly business plans and the British Sparkling Elite Veterinary Association??

As I said earlier . If BVA and BSAVA want to walk away from looking after their members (claim apolitical status), then who will look after RCVS members needs in future? Do we really have a decade to fix this if we need it? The reviews are happening now and Association activity is limited.

Why are women under-represented within SPVS, BVA and BSAVA? Why do I keep getting golfing weekend and Diving Weekend adverts from SPVS? Shouldn't they be recruiting young members who dont know what golf is? Who are these guys looking after today?

How soon can we support a new alternative veterinary group that speaks on behalf of the well-being of the wider profession and the average vet AND nurse?

We should be being told by BVA that they will ensure that our obligations to our patients and clients dont get mashed up during 24/7 review/ PSS review. The Roral Charter allows the imposition of politicians wishes on behalf of consumers upon us. Who is watching our backs please? Is it every man and women for them selves as our Associations have unilaterally become apolitical?

Can we encourage BVA to remember its mission statement and grow fast again in confidence purpose and self esteem? Can we somehow give it the balls needed to be and to act independent of BSAVA and SPVS? Can we drop the handshakes behind closed doors and change our culture fast?

If you talk to a doctor or pharmacist about the Association support we get (best over a glass of decent red wine), they may well give you a big wake up call and tell you they didn't realise we were so out of date and out of touch and unprotected.

I see this disconnect with member well-being and modern veterinary culture as a great way of letting limited distressed well-being fall further. BSAVA could do a great deal....

Regards

Stu x

(Back to real life as a hard working animal doctor for a while )