|
|
Opinion & Comment: Journey in need of a map
Posted by: JimEdwards on Oct 17, 2004 - 01:51 PM
Information
|
The Vet Record COMMENT 16th October 2004
 A VALUABLE aspect of debate is that it can sometimes take a revealing turn. This happened during discussion of a new Veterinary Surgeons Act at the recent BVA Congress. As reported on p 474 of this issue, the debate was entitled ‘Who should regulate the veterinary profession?’ However, as the debate progressed it became clear that this was not the main issue of concern to delegates; the more important question was, ‘Who should regulate veterinary paraprofessionals?’ The veterinary profession, after all, is regulated under the existing Act, while many paraprofessionals are not, and, although the arrangements forgoverning the profession might change in the future, it is the regulation of paraprofessionals that needs to be addressed.
To an extent, this was a logical extension of a decision made by the RCVS Council in March, which itself moved the debate on a possible new Act in a new direction. Until then, the journey towards a new Act had been following fairly predictable lines, with the RCVS having consulted its members on what they would like to see in revised legislation, and the Government issuing a public consultation document on what an updated Act might contain. At that stage, the idea that any body other than the RCVS might regulate the veterinary profession had not arisen; indeed, the Government had specifically made clear that it believed that the RCVS should remain ‘the competent authority for the profession, with responsibilities for the education, registration and disciplining of veterinary surgeons in the UK’. However, at its meeting in March, the RCVS Council decided that a new Act ‘should provide for the regulation of the training and conduct of veterinary nurses and a range of other occupations providing veterinary services’. This set the RCVS on the road to achieving regulation for all groups of people providing veterinary services, not just veterinary surgeons, and also raised the question of who should do the regulating.
The RCVS is currently looking into this and various options are being considered (see VR, July 31, pp 133-134). Quite where the road is leading is not altogether clear at present, but the point was well made at the BVA Congress that it will be important to be sure from the start.
There will inevitably be dangers in opening the Veterinary Surgeons Act; hazards will be encountered along the way and, even if the veterinary profession has a clear idea of what it wants from a new Act, the outcome is by no means certain. There are many others with an interest, including the Government, the public, and paraprofessionals themselves.
As far as the Government is concerned, it was suggested at the congress that moves to update the Act should be seen not just in terms of the general trend towards greater transparency and accountability across the professions; they also needed to be viewed in the context of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, and the Government’s desire to save on costs. Concern was expressed, too, about the term ‘suitably qualified person’ in recent European legislation on medicines, and how this might be translated into UK law. This concern was heightened by the fact that the term ‘animals under his care’ is missing from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s concept document on a framework for the distribution and classification of medicines (see VR, September 11, pp 313-314, 315; October 9, p 439), with the point being made that, if this approach was adopted and extended to other areas, the end result would be not so much a profession as a trade. This, clearly, would be a retrograde step; the raison d’?tre of the veterinary profession is to protect animals and the public, and the point was also made that the profession should resist any changes that might put either of these at risk in the future.
With regard to paraprofessionals, key questions are whether they will want to be regulated and, if so, by whom. Veterinary nurses might be happy to be regulated by the RCVS, although this should not be taken for granted, but will this be true of others? Proposals for a General Veterinary Council made up of veterinary surgeons, paraprofessionals and lay people, are currently being explored by the RCVS, and might provide a solution. However, all sorts of options are possible and, as highlighted during the BVA Congress debate, the question also arises of how the activities of such a regulatory body would be paid for. The aim of regulating all veterinary and veterinary-related activity remains admirable, but any new Act must be workable, and strengthen the protection currently afforded to animals and the public in practical terms. If a solution is to be found, it will have to be based on consensus and, if it becomes incorporated into a new Act, provision will have to be made to ensure that the legislation is enforced.
It was clear from the congress debate that the RCVS has set itself a difficult task in deciding to consider ways in which it might be possible to broaden the scope of the Act, and that the profession must tread carefully in deciding how it wants to move forward. Not only does it need a precise idea of where it wants to get to; it also needs to decide how to get there, bearing in mind that it could easily be diverted along the way.
|
|
|
