OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Bob Russell — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 11:01:03 GMT

Speak for yourself! I don't do 'friends' on Facebook!!!

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Neil Wheadon — Sat, 28 Jan 2023 12:29:30 GMT

[quote userid="8858" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240672#240672"]The BVA is set up to represent us, not the RCVS. It's disappointing that more vets are not members. [/quote]

But they are, just they may not realise it

IVC has membership as an employee benefit. I have a casual contract with them and I am a member as a result

The issue is engagement. Look at this forum where this was covered a few months ago. Local groups are dying, in fact a lot of clubs are dying? Why? Well in my opinion it's because everything is online now. Younger vets seem not to want to be a part of this. It's not just vets, a GP friend was lamenting the loss of a 150 year old clinical club. We have more friends (on facebook) but fewer in real life

Neil

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Jill Butterworth — Sat, 28 Jan 2023 11:20:46 GMT

The BVA is set up to represent us, not the RCVS. It's disappointing that more vets are not members.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Richard Carter — Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:29:50 GMT

This may have become the fact due to a very specific twist by individuals over time in RCVS.

Compare us to the medical or nursing self regulation officials and you will see they definitely come out fighting for their members as a profession as seen with the most recent negotiations and decision to strike while the GP council regularly puts out position statements of the profession to tell politicians etc

Anyhow we been so outflanked by big business, interest groups and greed, time to disband any pretence we have of being honourable well educated professionals worthy of notice. .The vets have been manoeuvred out of their own profession

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Eamon McAllister — Fri, 27 Jan 2023 17:44:11 GMT

[quote userid="8361" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240659#240659"]But here's the thing. Council is there to regulate, not represent the profession. I think this gets largely forgotten.[/quote]

Forgotten and misunderstood. Either way the “electorate” has a vanishingly small say in the decisions handed down by the RCVS. The “elections” are perfectly designed to suggest democracy but only obfuscate the reality of who controls the levers of power and how that power is exercised.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 27 Jan 2023 16:46:43 GMT

[quote userid="2490" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240667#240667"]This enables regulation of vets to be informed, practical and fair to all parties and preserves vital consideration of animal welfare. [/quote]

Which is why representatives of corporates should be disqualified from election to council seats.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Fri, 27 Jan 2023 16:08:38 GMT

It is very true that the RCVS is there to regulate vets not represent them and a fancy manifesto on a single ticket issue is less important than being willing to put in the hours reading the papers from a position of knowledge and making difficult decisions and working together. The election system enables vets to elect those who have experienced working as a vet and are aware of all the unique aspects of veterinary practice. This means that they can speak out when some ideas are formulated without adequate knowledge to predict the consequences in general practice. In my experience on council practitioners were essential and I’m sure still are though we were occasionally perceived to be a bit of a nuisance and overprotective of the status quo.

The structure of council has changed markedly since my time with more lay members and fewer practitioners plus a reduced number of heads of vet school many of whom had had some experience of practice. I think it is even more important than ever to elect experienced vets from practice who actually do the job on the front line. This enables regulation of vets to be informed, practical and fair to all parties and preserves vital consideration of animal welfare.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:42:12 GMT

Yes, but in selecting who performs that role in a self-regulating profession, you are invited to pick people who you feel represent the profession.

That said ...

[quote userid="8361" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240659#240659"]I think this gets largely forgotten.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Sarah Wheadon — Fri, 27 Jan 2023 10:29:59 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240652#240652"]You should just pick the ones that you think will represent the profession best. [/quote]

But here's the thing. Council is there to regulate, not represent the profession. I think this gets largely forgotten.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:34:00 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240652#240652"] You should just pick the ones that you think will represent the profession best. [/quote]

I have always voted.

When you get the candidate list:

Cross out anyone who's in the pay of a corporate.

Cross out any nutters or any with some personal axe to grind.

Cross out any who are obviously too young.

Cross out any who have little or no experience of practice.

Cross out any who only utter pious platitudes in their statement.

Cross out any who espouse policies which you oppose.

Watch the videos and cross out any who you take a dislike to.

See who's left. There may be a couple.

Don't fill up your quota of votes with standard "good types". They'll get votes anyway so you'll effectively be voting against your real choice.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:56:23 GMT

[quote userid="2490" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240651#240651"]The only problem is that you can then get one aggressive and obsessive individual making a council member’s life hell. Which is one of the reasons I resigned , and probably why elected council members often go quiet on social media.[/quote]

Gosh ... didn't know it was one of the reasons you resigned, and yes, suspect this is such a big problem for anyone in public life these days, especially with social media.

I think the other thing I've always understood is that council members are not supposed to represent individuals, they are supposed to be representative of the profession. May seem like semantics, but the idea is that you can't (or shouldn't) try to lobby a council member. You should just pick the ones that you think will represent the profession best.

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240649#240649"]Maybe as part of the process of encouraging members to vote, this information should be made more freely available?[/quote]

Having realised that I was wrong and you can ask for the voting results, I was a bit surprised that they are not just published with each decision. You wouldn't have thought it would add to the workload, and I do think it would help people vote (for those they want to retain, anyway).

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:46:13 GMT

The only problem is that you can then get one aggressive and obsessive individual making a council member’s life hell. Which is one of the reasons I resigned , and probably why elected council members often go quiet on social media. If you’re not a professional politician and you are working hard at being a vet you don’t need that in your life.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:36:13 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240648#240648"]

pologies all, I was wrong about that. Could have sworn it was the case, but apparently Jo is absolutely right.

Jo Dyer said:
I'm pretty sure anyone can request to see the voting record for any Council decision except election of officers, if you contact the college within a time frame, maybe 28 days?

[/quote]

Maybe as part of the process of encouraging members to vote, this information should be made more freely available? There could be a case for votes such as this to be posted on Vetsurgeon? I'm not talking about every vote, but the ones where voters (that's the profession) can get a better understanding of the issues and who voted for and against.

At present aside reputation or personally knowing the candidate it's impossible to split them apart (in most cases) on personal statements which all seem to tick the same boxes.

At the moment it is akin to dart throwing in a darkened room, hence the reason why many don't vote on my opinion.

Neil

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:27:22 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240578#240578"]You're not allowed to know. Collective responsibility.[/quote]

Apologies all, I was wrong about that. Could have sworn it was the case, but apparently Jo is absolutely right.

[quote userid="12572" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240594#240594"]I'm pretty sure anyone can request to see the voting record for any Council decision except election of officers, if you contact the college within a time frame, maybe 28 days? [/quote]

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Jo Dyer — Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:38:15 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240613#240613"]Jo Dyer - Do you know why the word 'should' rather than 'must' was used, and why the others on Council didn't mind?[/quote]

The guidelines that were voted through can be found here;

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/19-january-2023/

Related Documents at the bottom of the page. Paper 4 of 4, P 204 of the downloaded pdf.

Looking at it again, I’m not sure if the first part, in italics, is part of the new guidance or just explanatory for the meeting.

We were told by the registrar that it is the convention to use the word ‘should’ in any guidelines, as they are guidelines, not rules, and require those being guided to use their professional judgment.

I didn't want to (effectively) lose the Under Care clause without replacing it with a VCPR, but if we were going ahead with that then I wanted the requirement for back up from a physical practice to be as robust as possible.

Anyway, the majority of my colleagues were confident in the new guidance so I am happy to accept this and work with it. There will be positives for practices.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Andreas Ege — Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:10:22 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240613#240613"]why the word 'should' rather than 'must' was used[/quote]

Obviously not the person asked.

I don't know how it's with legal texts in Britain. In Germany a 'should' in a legal text translates into 'must, unless there is a strong justification not to', which I guess leaves some room for unforseen situations. Maybe it's something like that.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Eamon McAllister — Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:26:16 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240585#240585"]if I was playing devils advocate, I would say that the difference is that MPs are paid to represent you, whereas Council members are there to be representative of the profession. [/quote]

This is one of the problems. Council members being used as a fig leaf on a democratic deficit when they should be actively representing the profession. It is little wonder that voter turnout is so low in the elections.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:05:25 GMT

[quote userid="12572" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240594#240594"]

I am glad that we have tried to put a lot of responsibility back into prescribing remotely (after making Under Care fairly meaningless) by adding the clause about having to have an arrangement with a physical practice, but as I said at Thursday's meeting, I was concerned about using 'should' rather than 'must'.

I voted against it but I was outvoted, that's life.

[/quote]

Jo Dyer - Do you know why the word 'should' rather than 'must' was used, and why the others on Council didn't mind?

Will Wilkinson - any thoughts about this? Perhaps that's what you're talking about in the last bit of the second para of your post.

In the press release I received the other day, it said that safeguards:

"require that veterinary surgeons who have taken animals under their care should have the facility available to physically examine the animal and/or visit the premises of animals under their care."

The word 'require' is synonymous with 'must' not 'should'! The same thing was said, I believe, in a tweet from the RCVS.

If the College later says it's a 'should' and the guidelines only 'recommend' and not 'require', I think it will lose all authority. It would be such a schoolboy error.

[quote userid="28988" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240610#240610"]Prior to the vote, all Council members present were aware that the proposed guidance has the potential to advantage corporate practices over independent practices, that business practices have an impact on the long term viability of the profession and that a healthy profession is necessary for both 'animal health and welfare' and 'the broader public interest', the two things which the RCVS is supposed to uphold.[/quote]

From which one has to suppose that either Council members generally did not think it would give corporate practices an advantage, or that it wouldn't matter if it did, or that other issues, such as the legal enforceability of the guidelines, took precedent.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Will Wilkinson — Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:58:45 GMT

I am number three.

In defence of other Council members- many are against 'pure telemedicine' and believe that the amended guidance is sufficient to prevent this. I would recommend that you approach invididuals for their own comments to better understand their views rather than solely using the way they voted in this decision before deciding how to vote in future elections.

I think the amended proposals are better than the originals and, having been involved in the amendments, was going to back them as I'd thought the choice was going to be along the lines of 'original proposals or amended proposals'. However, new information was received and I also remain unconvinced that the new proposals are better than the existing guidance, or that the only option was to replace the existing guidance. This being said, Council has now voted thus it's now a case of implementing the decision as best possible. Some small changes to wording were agreed to at the meeting last week which should make the amendments even clearer and leave less ambiguity that 'under care' must occur before the decision to diagnose or prescribe rather than being implied by that decision. A perhaps pedantic detail but hopefully counts for something.

Prior to the vote, all Council members present were aware that the proposed guidance has the potential to advantage corporate practices over independent practices, that business practices have an impact on the long term viability of the profession and that a healthy profession is necessary for both 'animal health and welfare' and 'the broader public interest', the two things which the RCVS is supposed to uphold.

Other points:

I (personally) recommend that practices start using VPCRs or some form of similar agreement upon which the provision of care is based as this is not something which vets need permission from the RCVS to do; we are free to have higher standards than is required.

I believe the VMD will be consulting on the VMR (2013), one of the relevant pieces of legislation in this decision, and would recommend all colleagues keep an eye out for this and respond to it as stakeholders.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Alistair Graham-Evans — Sun, 22 Jan 2023 10:12:40 GMT

[quote userid="12572" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240594#240594"], and what to do about clients referred by telemedicine companies with whom they do not have a formal arrangement,[/quote]

Well done for speaking out Jo.

Regarding the above- the proposed rules state that

” his arrangement should be …made in advance before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client. ‘

Of course it gets tricky if the client doesn’t like the advice of the Tele consultant and goes to another vet or back to their original vet - I guess they have just wasted a consultation fee then. If the animal gets side effects from the medication prescribed then it gets even trickier.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:15:55 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240585#240585"]I suppose if I was playing devils advocate, I would say that the difference is that MPs are paid to represent you, whereas Council members are there to be representative of the profession. [/quote]

But, er, the profession is us.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:14:15 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240578#240578"]You're not allowed to know. Collective responsibility.[/quote]

No, "collective responsibility" means that although they voted against they are supposed to support the decision now it's been taken.

It's no reason to keep it secret who voted which way.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Jo Dyer — Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:10:59 GMT

We don't operate in complete secrecy!

It's been quite obvious how I feel about this subject, not least from this thread;

https://www.vetsurgeon.org/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/30406/under-care-consultation#pifragment-5410=1

I voted against it but I was outvoted, that's life.

I'm pretty sure anyone can request to see the voting record for any Council decision except election of officers, if you contact the college within a time frame, maybe 28 days?

One of the others who voted against was James Wood, and I've seen subsequently that he wants it to go on public record that he supports the new guidance, but voted No due to confusion about when it would be published.

I will leave the other person to speak for themselves unless someone gets hold of the results first!

The guidance doesn't go live until sometime between June and December and it's not impossible that it will need to be tweaked, depending on the review of the VMRs by VMD.

Assuming it comes in unchanged, I don't for a minute believe it will hugely adversely affect practices, because we all know stand-alone telemedicine is a bit rubbish in most situations. Practice owners may need to think laterally about how to take advantage of it themselves, and what to do about clients referred by telemedicine companies with whom they do not have a formal arrangement, but who knows, there may be opportunities as well as threats.

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:24:05 GMT

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240587#240587"]Who's on council and on here? Can we tag them and ask them?[/quote]

Jo Dyer, Will Wilkinson, Kate Richards, Stephen May, Tshidi Gardiner, Olivia Cook, Niall Connell, Danny Chambers

But I'm not sure they are allowed to say!

RE: OOH consultation, who voted against on council?

Neil Wheadon — Sat, 21 Jan 2023 14:27:14 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30555/ooh-consultation-who-voted-against-on-council/240585#240585"]Still, I think it takes something away from personal accountability. And a lack of transparency is never a good look in the age of openness that we live in.[/quote]

So when the next council election comes in, all I can do is take a dart and throw it at the ballot paper because I simply cannot judge a council member by his or her's past actions. It's undemocratic and very very wrong. I think (note I'm not saying definately) but wasn't this why we had a resignation last year?

Neil