KM,
I agree. In my opinion regulation may work against us if it is not applied consistently across the board in NHS medical/clincial engineering. If it isn't applied rigorously then employers in the NHS may try to circumvent a weak system of regulation by choosing the cheapest options with regard to creating registered or non-registered posts in EBME, particularly. Training and career prospects associated with regulation may be patchy and limited to the larger Medical Physics Departments. This could mean difficulties for non-registered ex-EBME engineers moving between jobs in particular.
In fact a worse situation to what exists now, for some, except the manufacturers and 3rd party agents will be placed in an even stronger position if they do not have to comply to the same standards of regulation that NHS may have to. In general medical equipment maintenance, working in EBME, individuals only see a limited aspect of the C.S. profession, if at all. If you worked, or visited, a large Medical Physics department providing Clinical Imaging, Clinical Engineeering, Radiotherapy, Radiation Protection, etc, etc you would see that regulation is important for individuals in that profession.
You have to consider the consequences of failing to deliver correct therapeutic doses, failure to diagnose life-threatening diseases and ability to cause injuries through incompetence in R&D. I think regulation should be about ensuring a competent workforce, that can demonstrate this, consisting of individuals that are accountable for their actions. However, considering C.S. employed in maintenance, I agree with your point about there being little difference, on the face of it, between what C.S. in general maintenance do and what Engineers do - except the C.S. is usually employed in a responsible position as a manager of course.
