RCVS' reputation

Re: RCVS' reputation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:08:48 GMT

Possible disciplinary charges-it's important that employers aren'tseen tohave made their minds up in advance

Wynne

Re: RCVS' reputation

Anthony Todd — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:41:33 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]there may be legal restraints on what can be said in public at the moment [/quote]

I can't see how there can be "legal restraints" or any valid reason preventing the publication of a report to members of the same organisation, unless there is something to hide from those members.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Laurence Webb — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:36:38 GMT

You'd have quite a time hunting for her appendix for a start. But essentially yes, as long as you wife consented to the treatment and was aware that your total of medical training was watching Casualty then that would be OK.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:18:33 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]It is legal for anyone to treat humans-it only becomes a criminal offence if they falsely claim to be doctors[/quote]

Didn't know that. What, you mean it is perfectly legal for me to perform a home appendectomy on my wife, but if I were to do it on Daisy (currently curled up at my feet), I'd be spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure?

Re: RCVS' reputation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:09:58 GMT

Actually they haven't It has been illegal since 1948 for anyone other than a veterinary surgeon to treat (by whatever means-and whether charged for or not ) injury or disease in animals

It is legal for anyone to treat humans-it only becomes a criminal offence if they falsely claim to be doctors

Therefore chiropracters/homeopaths can treat humans, they break the law if they treat animals

Wynne

Re: RCVS' reputation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:06:10 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Apart from the exclusive right to earn one's living in a particular manner[/quote]

Don't doctors have the same exclusive right, and yet they are not MGMC?

Re: RCVS' reputation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:58:27 GMT

Apart from the exclusive right to earn one's living in a particular manner

Wynne

Re: RCVS' reputation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:54:46 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Arlo We are a SELFregulating learned profession i.e.MEMBERS of the profession regulate, so MRCVS is entirely proper

Wynne[/quote]

Yes, I know it's self-regulating (though not entirely), but MRCVS is Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons - ie a member of an organisation (RC), not necessarily the profession (though of course it is implicit).

The point that Anthony was making, and I rather agree is that being a member of an organisation implies that you get something from that organisation, be it the AA, British Field Sports Society, or The Times Book Club. Being a member of a profession is slightly different - one doesn't expect anything back from a profession.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Bob Russell — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:41:34 GMT

As I hope I made it clear, I believe this is the time for acceptance of failure and clear and on-going steps taken to improve future procedures. We need a more transparent RCVS. The process of review does not have to be long and drawn out, nor does it have to be a witch hunt!

Re: RCVS' reputation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:40:56 GMT

Arlo We are a SELFregulating learned profession i.e.MEMBERS of the profession regulate, so MRCVS is entirely proper

Wynne

Re: RCVS' reputation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:00:07 GMT

Bob Front page of this week's Veterinary Practice Jerry Davies wrote "That such a review was required is regretted " That doesn't sound to me like pretending everything is all right-more like someone who's trying tomake it all right-and there may be legal restraints on what can be said in public at the moment

My personal opinion (for what it's worth ) is that a "Yes minister " culture had arisen in which the secretariat had become over-powerful A similar situation occurred a few years ago in BVA and Peter Jinman sorted it out during his presidential year

With Jane Hern's resignation there's a chance for a power re-alignment in Royal College-with more power in the hands of elected veterinary surgeons, and the registrar as a magistrates clerk-there to give legal advice if asked-and otherwise expected to keep quiet as he/she is not actually a member of Council Now isn't the time torock the boat by sniping at those who are trying to sort things out-by all means criticise them later if they fail-but don't make the job harder

Richard I know the officers do a lot of behind the scenes lobbying with DEFRA the Scottish Parliament,and the Welsh Assembly

Wynne

Re: RCVS' reputation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:50:32 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Seems to me that my DVLA/RAC/AA analogy might be where the problem lies and we should be a member of the BVA but a registrant or licencee of the RCVS.[/quote]

I completely agree that the word 'member' seems somehow inappropriate with regard to a regulator, and perhaps changing that one word would be the single most effective thing the Collge could do to clarify it's role. But MRCVS is pretty deeply engrained. What could be the alternative?

Actually, moving one letter back in the alphabet has a ring to it LRCVS (from your latter suggestion, Anthony). Or how about PRCVS (Practitioner)

Or RVS. (Registered)

Re: RCVS' reputation

Anthony Todd — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:38:10 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]Just about everything you have mentioned there is covered by BVA and/or the specialist divisions;[/quote]

Seems to me that my DVLA/RAC/AA analogy might be where the problem lies and we should be a member of the BVA but a registrant or licencee of the RCVS.

[quote user="Julian Earl"] The RCVS should be expending their efforts on educating, improving and monitoring the profession which I think is what they might claim. [/quote]

Yes, more confirmation of the above??

Mind you, I can't see it changing quickly.....

Re: RCVS' reputation

Richard Carter — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:24:01 GMT

The BVA does not have a legal mandate to represent the profession - the best it can do is represent the views of its members. Perhaps a few people may want to read the VSA again - the Councillors of the RCVS are charged to determine what constitutes an act of veterinary surgery, ie to determine what is within the scope of the profession and what would be an illegal act if not carried out by a veterinary surgeon. They are also charged with determining what the necessary qualifications and skills would be required to allow registration as a veterinary surgeon, it being illegal to practice as a veterinary surgeon if not registered with the RCVS. The regulations (GtoPC), disciplinary process and all the other pieces that seem to take over priority are actually secondary issues. I would have thought that the above would place the RCVS at the head of the vet profession in a legal sense and therefore the obvious place for the official response to whatever issues are hitting the news.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:21:25 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"] It would help if the RCVS started the reform by avoiding retreating behind the Vet Surgeons Act and claiming their sole role is 'regulation' and that the Councillors stood up to the fact they have been elected to represent the WHOLE profession, only part of which includes being responsible for the regulations under the Vet Surgeons Act. The RCVS really should be the government's, the charities and any other interested party's FIRST port of call for the 'official' stance/ position/response of the profession. Any other body including the BVA really only has an opinion.

Even MRCVS comments on this forum have consistently referred to the RCVS as the regulators - just shows - if a statement is repeated often enough it becomes the truth[/quote]

Richard, last night I had a skim read through the Royal Charter and the VSA. Now I'm not a lawyer, and I may well have missed something, but I can find no reference to it being within the Royal College's remit to represent the profession. I can only find stuff outlining it's responsibility for things like running the register and the disciplinary process.

So whilst it seems obvious why people might want the RCVS to fulfil this role, it really doesn't (to me at least) represent an argument why it should.

I can also understand why the RCVS might be unwilling to represent the profession. It's primary role is as the regulator. Don't you think it might represent a massive conflict of interest if the regulator was also the champion of the people it regulates?

[quote user="Richard Carter"]This is part of the problem - everyone ducks and then scampers back to the VSA for re-assurance and comforting. The RCVS could have the specialist committees or a poll across the profession on specific issues to determine what the official standpoint of the veterinary profession is on topical issues eg live transport of livestock, hereditary defects in breeding animals, the role of animal charities, the use of live animals in experimental situations, the level of competence required to keeping a pet, whether ID chips should be compulsory, the science behind TB control etc .[/quote]

I read this and had a bit of a eureka moment!

I've bought the website address: http://www.whatvetsthink.org

I'm sure you can guess what's coming next!

Re: RCVS' reputation

Julian Earl — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:08:03 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

So, what is their legal position exactly? I've heard M'sRCVS call for stuff like the RCVS should be aiming to change cascade regulation for example but the response is usually that this sort of thing is outside their remit. I'm not clear exactly what their role is, never mind what it should be.

[/quote]

This is part of the problem - everyone ducks and then scampers back to the VSA for re-assurance and comforting. The RCVS could have the specialist committees or a poll across the profession on specific issues to determine what the official standpoint of the veterinary profession is on topical issues eg live transport of livestock, hereditary defects in breeding animals, the role of animal charities, the use of live animals in experimental situations, the level of competence required to keeping a pet, whether ID chips should be compulsory, the science behind TB control etc .

Obviously there are specialist organisations dealing with the relevent legal aspects to some of these arguments (eg DEFRA) but we as a profession should have clout as our professional opinion should be the one that carries the most weight when it comes to animal care and health. And if our only official legal representation doesn't do this, preferring to avoid the issues or refer to other organisations such as the RSPCA which also does not have an all-encompasing legal mandate to do what it does but certainly will put out an official response to issues of the day, who do the people with the real clout such as DEFRA or the government then turn to to guage opinion/ actions to take when changing laws?

Think the present and previous Councils have been so inward looking into just 'regulating the profession' that the whole organisation has been overtaken by the animal charities and NGOs such as the Kennel club and farmers unions and is now irrelevent in the minds of government and public as the official voice of animal health and of veterinary surgeons.

[/quote]

Just about everything you have mentioned there is covered by BVA and/or the specialist divisions; I don't see the RCVS having a role in those areas at all personally.

If the Government turn to Defra or, heaven forbid, the RSPCA on welfare matters then it is the BVA failing, not the
RCVS. The RCVS should be expending their efforts on educating, improving and monitoring the profession which I think is what they might claim. Unfortunately they sometimes make a pig's ear of it, sadly.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Anthony Todd — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:25:04 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Throughout the world one of the greatest healing methods has been by 'truth and reconciliation'. I believe it is now time for the council to release a statement admitting to the problems and much more important letting us know what they propose to do to correct it and prevent it happening again. It is then over to the membership to decide whether this is acceptable or not![/quote]

Could also be that, if we were given the whole story and report,we may decide that it was unavoidable or they were conned. It may not even be their fault, but unless we are told we cannot decide and vitriol is often the usual sequel to frustration.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Anthony Todd — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:20:30 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]If someone could lay it all out in words of one syllable I'd be most grateful. [/quote]

That's difficult because, it seems to me, that the RCVS is, or has to be, the DVLA of vets, ie licensng and controlling and protecting the public, yet appearing, or having, to act in vets' interests, ie the AA or RAC.

What really doesn't help is the lack of transparency; the reluctance to release the IT report being the latest example, which always brings a negative feeling of distrust or worse.

It may well be that the members [of the AA or RAC] or the registrants [of the DVLA] would be more sympathetic, and even helpful in the future, if there was more transparency; less of the DVLA and more of the AA or RAC.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Richard Carter — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:45:25 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

[/quote]

Re: RCVS' reputation

Gerry Henry — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:14:05 GMT

In your dreams. Most of the profession is apathetic to the point of catatonia.

Re: RCVS' reputation

Bob Russell — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:14:53 GMT

The RCVS could start with an apology! Clearly they have got a lot of things very wrong and the membership are unlikely to respect the council if they remain silent. All of the council members have the intelligence and capability to communicate with us.

Throughout the world one of the greatest healing methods has been by 'truth and reconciliation'. I believe it is now time for the council to release a statement admitting to the problems and much more important letting us know what they propose to do to correct it and prevent it happening again. It is then over to the membership to decide whether this is acceptable or not!

They seem to be pretending everything is OK. The last newsletter was full of 'how wonderful things are' spin and I for one considered it a little insulting to the intelligence of the members!

Re: RCVS' reputation

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:50:30 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Obviously it's not on the same scale but in a strange way this issue is a bit reminiscent of the recent scandal concerning climate change research which was being witheld from critics because the researchers considered that the critics were so agressive and unreasonable they preferred not to let them have the information in the first place - not good for transparency.[/quote]

RMB is another example. I've heard people from pet food manufacturers say there are elements of the RMB argument that are interesting, and worth looking at, but the way the RMB Brigade goes about things is so obnoxious that it leaves no room for discussion.

Re: RCVS' reputation

J G Wray — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:32:49 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]So, what is their legal position exactly? I've heard M'sRCVS call for stuff like the RCVS should be aiming to change cascade regulation for example but the response is usually that this sort of thing is outside their remit. I'm not clear exactly what their role is, never mind what it should be.[/quote]

The cascade thing is easy. it's not their remit, because it is beyond the scope of the VSA 1966 and even though the Charter allows them as a "body corporate" to look at areas beyond veterinary practice, Libraries, Charities, qualifications etc, altering the law ain't part of it.

"..I'm not clear exactly what their role is, never mind what it should be..."

Neither are they. Therein lies the first Truth about RCVS. It is acquiring roles, jobs, things to do, but without an overarching sense of purpose to create an admirable entity.

JGW

Re: RCVS' reputation

Niall Taylor — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:05:05 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

It would help if the RCVS started the reform by avoiding retreating behind the Vet Surgeons Act and claiming their sole role is 'regulation' and that the Councillors stood up to the fact they have been elected to represent the WHOLE profession, only part of which includes being responsible for the regulations under the Vet Surgeons Act. The RCVS really should be the government's, the charities and any other interested party's FIRST port of call for the 'official' stance/ position/response of the profession. Any other body including the BVA really only has an opinion.

Even MRCVS comments on this forum have consistently referred to the RCVS as the regulators - just shows - if a statement is repeated often enough it becomes the truth[/quote]

Niall

Re: RCVS' reputation

Richard Carter — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:24:54 GMT

Even MRCVS comments on this forum have consistently referred to the RCVS as the regulators - just shows - if a statement is repeated often enough it becomes the truth