RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Simon Neuhoff — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:12:47 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

The comment about not caring about the RCVS was probably not quite accurate. Perhaps better cannot be bothered to hit their heads against a very hard brick wall!

On the VMD front I accept that little has changed but there have been no disciplinary or legal cases with regard to cascade. I feel the petition will be there should anyone be faced with defending themselves against the authorities. Not a wasted effort I hope. Many thanks to all those who took the trouble to sign it!

[/quote]

Well I certainly feel that the RCVS aren't doing a great job but I personally am too apathetic to do much about it - I may just be able to stir myself enough to add my voice to a general grumble but that's about it. However there are other fights out there that I wish the profession would take on - most specifically the monstrosities that are being bred such as the extremely brachycephalic dogs and cats. That is something I would get more energetic about!

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Bob Russell — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:03:51 GMT

The comment about not caring about the RCVS was probably not quite accurate. Perhaps better cannot be bothered to hit their heads against a very hard brick wall!

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Simon Neuhoff — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:59:20 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Vets are not apathetic, they just have a hell of a lot on! They prioritise and the RCVS loses.

They care just not about the RCVS!

[/quote]

Vets DO care, about lots of things - no argument from me there. But it is so seldom that we stir ourselves as a group sufficiently to actually do anything about it. Kind of like the Ents in Lord of the Rings, or the online "slactivists". Lots of talk but no action. I include myself in this description - and I also am aware Bob of your efforts to challenge status quo re the VMD petition etc - but this is the exception to the rule!

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Bob Russell — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:01:18 GMT

Vets are not apathetic, they just have a hell of a lot on! They prioritise and the RCVS loses.

They care just not about the RCVS!

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Simon Neuhoff — Fri, 20 May 2011 15:54:25 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The real scandal is of council members, in open council where they knew they would be reported, sneering and sniggering at the ordinary Members.

[/quote]

I didn't hear about that, Evelyn. When did it happen?

[/quote]

Lynne Hill and Stephen May at the time of the "must notify the College that you haven't moved" debate. All written up in both Veterinary Record and Veterinary Times.

[/quote]

It doesn't me surprise at all. Because of the abysmally low voter turnout they must be regarded as self selected, unelected and with no mandate to lead the profession. We are lions led by donkeys.

[/quote]

Vets are far too apathetic to be considered lions! Sheep perhaps.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 19 May 2011 01:51:57 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"] Whilst I strongly disagree with the views expressed by Mrs Hill and Prof May they were made in an entirely proper 'parliamentary fashion'.[/quote]

Well I'm sorry Richard, but the reports in Veterinary Record and Veterinary Times (neither of which are noted for, err, creative reporting) were somewhat otherwise.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 18 May 2011 20:48:46 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The real scandal is of council members, in open council where they knew they would be reported, sneering and sniggering at the ordinary Members.

[/quote]

Dear Evelyn,

Having attended the aforementioned Council meeting and finding myself as usual holding a minority opinion I must say that I have NEVER encountered any member of Council (even those I disagree with) 'sneering and sniggering' at anyone let alone members of the RCVS. As a rule Council members take their role very seriously (perhaps too seriously) and i can assure you any undignified comments don't go down well.

Putting my cards on the table I voted and spoke against this particular proposal - I believe it will be an administrative nightmare and is not the only way that European rules could have been satisfied (although it is one way). Whilst I strongly disagree with the views expressed by Mrs Hill and Prof May they were made in an entirely proper 'parliamentary fashion'. The fact that Mrs Hill has just been re elected presumably means that she has a body of support (or that feelings on the issue were not very strong) as she has at least had the courage to nail her colours to the mast on the issue.

I guess its one of those 'disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it' things!! However I tend to agree with the thrust of your argument that EU rules are often 'gold plated' and used to justify all sorts of administrative excess.

Best wishes,

Richard S.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Martin Jones — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:04:02 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

We are lions led by donkeys.

[/quote]

Sheesh. Maybe along the lines of the cowardly lion from the Wizard of Oz........

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Eamon McAllister — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:40:32 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The real scandal is of council members, in open council where they knew they would be reported, sneering and sniggering at the ordinary Members.

[/quote]

I didn't hear about that, Evelyn. When did it happen?

[/quote]

Lynne Hill and Stephen May at the time of the "must notify the College that you haven't moved" debate. All written up in both Veterinary Record and Veterinary Times.

[/quote]

It doesn't me surprise at all. Because of the abysmally low voter turnout they must be regarded as self selected, unelected and with no mandate to lead the profession. We are lions led by donkeys.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Rob Reid — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:15:27 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Rob I'd prefer red wine to ale-just make sure it's Australian, not EEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

A good old British ale will do me nicely! I'm not so much of a wine drinker myself, but I have to say that the nicest bottle I've ever had was from the Okanagan valley in Canada, so non-EU does nicely for me as well!

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:04:13 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Evelyn I missed the report on Lynne Hill and Stephen May What exactly did they say ?

[/quote]

Oh come on, you remember. I can't be bothered to look it up now.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 18 May 2011 17:22:29 GMT

Rob I'd prefer red wine to ale-just make sure it's Australian, not EEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was always taught that it's polite to acknowledge communications, so on that basis, Belgravia House should acknowledge communications which they have insisted we make to them

Evelyn I missed the report on Lynne Hill and Stephen May What exactly did they say ?

Wynne

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Rob Reid — Wed, 18 May 2011 17:13:28 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]It is silly, but you can't blame Belgravia House completely for this one - it seems it is due to some stupid "EU" rule. On the other hand, several of us pointed out that they seemed to be misinterpreting the rule, but we never got a reply.[/quote]

I understand that Belgravia House aren't entriely to blame, but as you've said they seem to have 'over-interpreted' the EU directive. What has annoyed me the most however is the way in which they have introduced this rule - 'members' were not consulted over the process and there is absolutely no system of recognition for you acknowledging your detail. Is a simple "Thank you for your e-mail/written confirmation Mr Reid." too much to ask? Apparently so....

Not going to argue with you about the whole EU thing either....that's maybe a debate that's best had over a few ales though!

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 18 May 2011 16:56:50 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The real scandal is of council members, in open council where they knew they would be reported, sneering and sniggering at the ordinary Members.

[/quote]

I didn't hear about that, Evelyn. When did it happen?

[/quote]

Lynne Hill and Stephen May at the time of the "must notify the College that you haven't moved" debate. All written up in both Veterinary Record and Veterinary Times.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 18 May 2011 16:41:54 GMT

On the subject of non orthodox treatments, and sneering

When I was a teenager, the senior partner of my home practice, the late F V John, advised me to always give an injection of multivitamins to sick animals-saying "it's a good tonic " My father, a farmer had great respect for Mr John, because cows usually got better if he treated them, so I also respected his opinions, based on the principle "the proof of the pudding " Soon after qualifying I was sneered at by some only a few years longer qualified than myself, because they thought multivits were of no use When I 1st was told about anti-oxidants, I asked" what are they?" I was told "Vit C Vit E etc " and thought "Mr John's tonic injection " In other words, the wisdom of an experienced member of the profession had been found true years after he had retired-and the sneering one's prooved wrong

I totally agree with you about the EEC-total waste of money, and source of silly regulations-worst thing we ever did was join it

Council members sneering at ordinary members should be reported to DC They are not above the Gto PC Some Councilmembers I know, and greatly respect-others I have heard sneering at other veterinary surgeons within hearing of persons not on the register. The only one's I thought the less of were the one's so unethical as to sneer, not the one's being sneered at

Wynne

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Eamon McAllister — Wed, 18 May 2011 16:40:19 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The real scandal is of council members, in open council where they knew they would be reported, sneering and sniggering at the ordinary Members.

[/quote]

I didn't hear about that, Evelyn. When did it happen?

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 18 May 2011 16:13:33 GMT

Going back to this thing:

[quote user="Rob Reid"]The whole system about telling the RCVS where you practice, etc etc. seems to me to be a waste of our fees - why were the 'members' not consulted on this.[/quote]

It is silly, but you can't blame Belgravia House completely for this one - it seems it is due to some stupid "EU" rule. On the other hand, several of us pointed out that they seemed to be misinterpreting the rule, but we never got a reply.

I don't suppose Belgravia House felt like taking a brave lonely stand against the "EU".

We are going to see more of this sort of bollox until either somebody takes the "EU" and reforms it (can't see that happening) or a government has the courage to get us out of this ghastly corrupt organisation (fat chance).

The real scandal is of council members, in open council where they knew they would be reported, sneering and sniggering at the ordinary Members.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:47:22 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]those who have serious concerns about another veterinary surgeon's competance,or integrity to report them-the PIC can then decide if the complaint is malicious-of course making repeated malicious complaints should in itself be a disciplinary matter[/quote]

That's perfectly possible. I don't really know why people think it is not. You had better be pretty d. sure of your facts though.

However, don't confuse that with the notion of it being a disciplinary offence to practise in a way that is not quite mainstream or orthodox, or apply treatment that does not quite agree with veterinary-school wisdom or your own opinion.

And don't criticise in retrospect another veterinary surgeon's opinions or actions to the public. You weren't there, you don't know.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 18 May 2011 11:36:05 GMT

I would never gossip about another veterinary surgeon to a lay person-that is thoroughly unprofessional, but I think the Gto PC should encourage those who have serious concerns about another veterinary surgeon's competance,or integrity to report them-the PIC can then decide if the complaint is malicious-of course making repeated malicious complaints should in itself be a disciplinary matter. Indeed I thought that the recent changes under the health protocol should encourage whistle blowing I know that some 15/20 years ago,a veterinary surgeon I knew complained to RCVS about an assistant who was taking practice drugs for personal use on herself and also for her friends to abuse, and nothing was done, but I've been assured that things have moved on

Wynne

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Rob Reid — Wed, 18 May 2011 10:15:53 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

I've been giving this a lot of thought overnight. I don't know if I have the answer but here are my thoughts.

I became a vet for the following reasons........

[/quote]

I've read your post with much interest Kate and I pretty much echo all your thoughts. I was utterly disillusioned by the Russell Oakes case. It was a 'right royal balls up' on the part of the RCVS if you ask me. Yes, the man set out to deliberately mislead and yes he was a fraudster; but the RCVS safety mechanisms were badly exposed as inadequate and at no point did I see any recognition of this by the RCVS.

I too have worked in a few practices and have worked with many vets - I am pleased to say that nearly everyone I have worked with are an absolute credit to the veterinary profession. It does baffle me too however that the people who are best placed to report bad practice (ie other vets) are pretty much actively discouraged from doing so by the RCVS GtPC.

I too feel like I am an MRCVS because I have to be if I want to practice. I do not feel I get any meaningful input into the way the RCVS operates, I simply pay my fees (or at least my practice pays them - thanks Penny & Derek!!) so I can practice. The whole system about telling the RCVS where you practice, etc etc. seems to me to be a waste of our fees - why were the 'members' not consulted on this. I raised some of these issues to this years candidates in the RCVS election forum - of those who answered, only the new blood (who unfortunately didn't get in) and one existing council member (who was not up for relection anyway I hasten to add) seemed particularly interested. The other answers I got I felt were just spun out to try to appease any potential voters.

I also do not have an obvious solution to the issue of how we can feel more like members. All I know is that something has to change, and unfortunately - if this years election is anything to go by, I don't see it happening soon.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Kate Richardson — Wed, 18 May 2011 10:12:47 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I still feel that the right people tojudge veterinary surgeons are other veterinary surgeons, not political lackeys[/quote]

I agree. But we can only judge them if someone other than a vet complains about them. Are we really monitoring from within if that is the case?

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 18 May 2011 10:09:25 GMT

Kate It's so lovely to hear from someone else who feels that our profession is a vocation,and who ishappy doing this wonderful job. Like any large barrel it's bound to have some rotten apples in it, but I still feel that the right people tojudge veterinary surgeons are other veterinary surgeons, not political lackeys

Wynne

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Kate Richardson — Wed, 18 May 2011 09:30:37 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

It should indeed.

[/quote]

I've been giving this a lot of thought overnight. I don't know if I have the answer but here are my thoughts.

I became a vet for the following reasons. I was intelligent enough to do so. I wanted to work with animals. It was the logical career choice for me and the only way I could see myself earning a decent salary. I come from a working class background, none of my family are or have been farmers or vets, just a normal working class family who couldn't afford many luxuries. I had the opportunity to follow a good career path and I worked extremely hard to achieve this. It is not a choice I regret at all. Fortunately, this choice was exactly the right one for me, it is my vocation, I absolutely love what I do, and I believe I do it well. I am happy with my salary, my job and my life. I have never been a person who needs to belong to a club or be associated with the elite, or have people think better of me than I am just because I belong to any membership. I am very proud of what I do, but I don't hold any candles up to myself and think I am better than I am.

I have worked in a lot of different practices over the years, either as a full time employee or as a locum, and have seen a huge variety in the way different vets practice, mostly very good experiences, but have also seen some awful practices. All Members of the RCVS. I am not supposed to criticise the way other vets practice, even when I have seen some things that I really want to expose because the Guide to Professional Conduct says I shouldnt. I've seen people misled and misinformed. I've experienced it myself. We govern ourselves, but do we when the only people allowed to report bad practice to Us are the public. I pay good money each year to be a member and the people in charge spend it on new websites, introducing on line payments that don't work, re-registering protocols that seem silly, assessing practices based on the paperwork being correct and paying little attention to the actual clinical work, allowing poor practice to continue, and letting people like Russell Oakes slip through the net. Yes it was 2 members that alerted the authorites that he was bogus, but the fact that they were members is neither here nor there in my opinion. They were members because they have to be. It was the job of the people in charge of registrations and they failed miserably. I have voted in the past in the RCVS elections and always select the candidates who are still working in the real world thinking it may make a difference, but it doesn't appear to. I didn't vote this year because I really didn't feel it would make any difference. Maybe I don't fully understand exactly what they do. But to me, as a busy full time working vet, the RCVS is just something I have to be a member of or I can't go to work legally. I am proud to be a member of the profession and proud to be associated with the majority of vets in this country practicising good veterinary medicine but I am not proud of the vets who bring our profession into disrepute even in small ways yet we are still members of the same club.

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Eamon McAllister — Tue, 17 May 2011 20:54:19 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Who said that? Because he (or I suspect more likely she ) is wrong and plainly has inadequate knowledge of the history of this profession and our Royal College.

[/quote]

I'm sure that I read it somewhere in the recent past. Perhaps someone at the RCVS could comment ?

Re: RCVS - there to protect the public.....- Russell Oakes

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 17 May 2011 19:15:42 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Evelyn, I don't disagree with you that the RCVS is 'us'; I just don't feel like I am a part of it other than by supplying funding. It should feel like more than that to me surely?[/quote]

It should indeed.