EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Statutory Regulation, Is there a Compelling Case?

Geoff you may call yourself whatever you wish, as you have more than earned the right to do so.
Biomedical Engineering Technician would be my choice though.
No delusions of grandeur, just describes what we do...

A small and select group of Biomed’s applying to the Professional Standards Agency for inclusion on a Voluntary Assured Register, stranger things have happened, and it’s always an option when you feel that you are being bullied or coerced into a course of action you don’t wish to follow.

Perhaps that is the real definition of democracy in action, not “tyranny by the majority”, but who knows!
Just a thought...

I believe that BMET is the most popular term in the States (and they out-number those of us in the UK by a wide margin, of course).

Meanwhile, I gave up on all that stuff myself a long (long) time ago! Eg:- ex-FSX-RayT, ex-FIHospE etc. (both gone now, of course).

Re: the above post ... "option", or "reaction"?

Option when you have a choice, reaction when you feel you dont, Geoff.

For clarity purposes, it is worth reiterating the arguments adopted so far, which is proposed as representing a compelling case for the statutory regulation of Clinical Technologists. I would leave it to you to decide if there is evidence of a serious risk to patient safety, and that the external assurances to employers stated, cannot be adequately provided under the assured voluntary register scheme.
This may shed some light upon the stances and tactics adopted so far.

The complication with any regulation is where do you draw the line. I believe it is important that some professions are regulated by law, however are we hands-on technicians really a profession in the generally accepted understanding of the term?

Perhaps it may be argued that all that care for patients should be regulated, but do we directly care for patients?

If it becomes a requirement for all medical engineering technicians to be accepted on a register then the requirements set by the VRCT surely would have to be modified to accommodate the existing and future potential technicians that carry out our type of work.

The problem with specifying a degree for example is that it clearly unfairly discriminates against older applicants. Degrees in my day were only awarded to the very few that had the required academic qualifications unlike now when many have a degree. Other qualifications have also lost the importance they once had, I have two engineering HNCs, one passed decades ago that was based on [censored] or bust vigorous examinations and highly mathematical and another modern doddle based on course work assignments. The latter HNC - all who attended passed (colleges boast of 98.5% pass rates), the former HNC - only 6 passed out of an initial class of 50 - those who could not keep up were kicked off.

So what happens to the journeyman engineering technician, who has a track record of decades of experience with qualifications such as City & Guilds that meant something in those days?

Are we in danger of excluding the hand-on dependable, competent technician that, in my view, we desperately need to service and repair the equipment. This job is not about designing equipment, it is about calibration, servicing and repairing. Alas, any regulation adopting the requirements of the VRCT would exclude many of the technicians of practical quality we so desire.

Which is just as it should be. It's called (or rather, used to be called) "maintaining high standards". And those who made the grade knew they had achieved something of real value.

Unlike these days, where "everyone gets a prize" - and every Tom, Dick and Ali has a degree.

He gets chucked on the scrap heap ... and has the [censored] taken out of him.

That journeyman with decades of experience had ample opportunity to apply to join the VRCT between 2000 and 2007. All that would have been taken into consideration was the individual's experience. Not their qualifications. If they chose not to apply during that time I think it incongruous to now call "foul".

Please note, if you are applying through one of the approved training schemes, an HNC or equivalent is still the defining qualification.

Just wondering how old would this journeyman actually be by now? It's been a very very long time since City & Guilds has been the standard for the level of post relevant to the VRCT and if anything it was overtaken by BTEC certificate and OND then finally HND/degree.

Surely this provisional journeyman by now should be approaching retirement and the VRCT won't really effect them before they retire?