Home Articles Downloads Forum Products Services EBME Expo Contact
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Mike Burns #64628 07/05/13 11:45 AM
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135
Expert
OP Offline
Expert
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135
I have to say that reading the same comments against the VRCT time and time again that I believe that many folk are just 'whistling in the wind'. Guys and galls, it would appear that the writing is on the wall. Don't know when it will happen, but compulsory regulation will happen some time.

If people are that much against it, then why don't you lobby your MP to suggest that when a vote on the issue happens, that they do not support it. I think you will find that you won't get much support. Just my opinion. That's called democracy in action - just like Jim and others at the APS are doing. If you haven't paid your subs to the VRCT then what is your problem - they are not acting on your behalf are they?

I suggest that you set up your own lobbying group to rally against registration if you are that much against it. I will be the first person to say publicly I am not joining you. Love to know how many members you would get.

Furthermore, it would seem that the posters with the 'loudest voices' appear to rally against this topic more often than the silent majority. Complete mirror image of what happens in real life in my opinion.

Mike Burns #64629 07/05/13 12:12 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
Sage
Offline
Sage
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
You are entitled to your views, Mike.
But when all is said and done, its just another opinion.
You are quite right, as a non subscriber to the VRCT, they are not acting on my behalf.
The attempt to impose compulsory registration upon me, and imply that I am unsafe or unfit to practice my chosen profession, I will oppose.
But that’s just my opinion, I don’t have access to a crystal ball myself, so I will refrain from predicting the future, but please don’t let that stop you.

Mike Burns #64630 07/05/13 12:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135
Expert
OP Offline
Expert
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135
Sean, I think I used the phrase 'my opinion' twice in my post. That's all it is when said and done - an opinion, thank you for reminding me of that, I hadn't realised. Then again, this website is full of opinions is it not. If you find a crystal ball please don't let that stop you from enlightening us on what it says.

Mike Burns #64631 07/05/13 1:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 12
Huw Offline
Hero
Offline
Hero
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 12
Thread locked.
Re-opened.

Last edited by Huw; 08/05/13 9:54 PM. Reason: Re-opened thread...
Mike Burns #64663 09/05/13 6:21 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
Sage
Offline
Sage
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
Thank you Huw, for re-opening this thread.

There are some valid and differing opinions expressed.
I would hope that further contributions in the form of coherent arguments are forthcoming from anyone who cares to comment, or who may be affected by the APS campaign.
In particular, the facts upon which the case for statutory (compulsory) regulation with regard to the Biomedical profession is made.

Mike Burns #64664 09/05/13 10:52 AM
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135
Expert
OP Offline
Expert
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 135
Good to see the thread re-opened. When I initiated it I wanted updates on where we were with the APS as I feel it is very important.

As I have mentioned a few times in the past - I really do think we should keep to the thread subject. There is nothing more annoying than thread hi-jacking. (Right, got that off my chest!)

I am not particularly bothered about the case for statutory (compulsory) regulation on this particular thread. I do think that is a matter for another thread. We have commented on that in the past (once or twice I think!)

Mike Burns #66427 08/12/13 8:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 20
Dreamer
Offline
Dreamer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 20
If there was going to be a compulsory register, it would be illegitimate if some people got on to it just by dint of their membership of some other organisation which allowed members to renew with no test to their competence or fitness to work.
Unless you had inspectors that examined practitioner's working practices before being allowed to register, then it would be completely worthless and unable to "protect patient safety" as Jim Methven suggests.
To support the kind of infrastructure which had inspectors like this, would mean that any compulsory register would cost a fortune to start up. We'd have to pay more than people who actually treat patients, and therefore the whole concept is ridiculous.

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  DaveC in Oz, RoJo 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
1 members (daisizhou), 449 guests, and 381 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
MDevins, EmsR16, Fergusben1, Guilherme Gomes, Salvatore
10,173 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums25
Topics11,055
Posts73,707
Members10,173
Most Online5,980
Jan 29th, 2020
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5