promoting "good practice" in unregulated sector

[davidh]

Just a general comment - it's really very easy to be an anonymous [glow=red,2,300]keyboard warrior[/glow] and make sniping comments - not quite so easy to be constructive and put your name to your opinions.

I and a few others don't buy any of the bul****t reasons why someone needs to be anonymous here, apart from wanting to cause trouble.

Bel and Andy are to be applauded for building bridges.

[seekerofwisdom]

Bel and Andy are to be applauded for building bridges

Of course you would say that David, as you are involved with an organisation that trains the unregulated. You really should declare your interest here.

Bel on the other hand needs to read her professional organisation's Code of Ethics that states that "it does not seek to encourage the development of the unregulated sector."

So to applaud someone who goes against their own Code of Ethics, says quite a lot about you.

Ethical SOW

[blinda]

This thread is not going anywhere….but for the record, just for you Ethical SOW; When a prospective BSc Podiatry student, (whether they be an FHP or not) attends for an interview at uni, one of the questions often asked is; “Have you ever observed a Podiatrist?” I know this because my name and surgery is kept by a uni as a clinic where prospective students are welcome to observe. Incidentally, this was the idea of a head of a faculty of the SCP. So, please go ahead and speak to the board Ethics, I`d be very interested to hear what they say. Oh, and don`t forget to provide the full report here.

I will repeat what I said in another thread on this forum;

In case you hadn`t understood the gist of my previous posts about unregulated practitioners, I do not `promote FHPs`. I have always encouraged anyone who has an interest in foot health to do the fulltime degree.

Is that clear enough?

Bel

[seekerofwisdom]

Bel

I dont think that very many FHPs undertake a degree- you are a ittle biased here perhaps since that is what you did ,I believe?
There is a world of difference between allowing someone who plans on embarking on a degree to watch your clinic , and a FHP who you happen to like on a personal level ,to attend for mutual benefit- I think this is what you implied was the outcome?

It seems that you are arguing your point to suit yourself. You really need to understand that the large majority of SCP pods do not want to associate with the unregistered sector. And please do not say that they are here to stay so we may as well improve their skills.

sunseeker

[davidh]

Aug 29, 2009 19:37:09 GMT seekerofwisdom said:

It seems that you are arguing your point to suit yourself. You really need to understand that the large majority of SCP pods do not want to associate with the unregistered sector. And please do not say that they are here to stay so we may as well improve their skills.

Bel, don't argue your point to suit yourself - it's very naughty and not what everyone else does on here at all ;D.

Meanwhile back in the real world.........

I certainly agree that the SCP likes to promote the fact that members should not associate themselves with the unregistered sector. How well they do this is largely a matter for conjecture, since there are no figures to show what members really think.

Now as to the question "are they here to stay?"
The evidence, in the form of three fully developed colleges offering courses in foot-health, at least one established provider who runs and is further developing foot-health courses, and various other foot-health training courses (the SCP do one but call it something else/the Inst are in the process of setting one up I believe) seems to suggest that they are.

Oh - and I almost forgot the most compelling reason why I personally believe FHPs are here to stay.
This may have escaped your notice (probably not, but you maybe didn't want to highlight it since it would interfere with you arguing your point to suit yourself )

[glow=red,2,300]we were not granted functional closure of the profession[/glow]

Sunseeker - is there really a good reason why you feel the need to continue to post anonymously?

[seekerofwisdom]

David

I apologise, my posting was not clear. What I really meant by "arguing the point to suit yourself" was that Bel changes her mind to fit in with the forum where she is posting . eg-on Pod Arena she claims never to promote the unregulated, yet here back on her old stomping ground , she is happy to have them at her clinic. Sorry if I seem confused, ,but that doesnt seem to make sense to me.

I know the question has bee asked before Bel, and I address this to you and not your mouthpiece ,David, , but why exactly do you belong to the SCP when your ethics are not in line with theirs?

David, I believe you have a long history of association with the unregulated-even before they were unregulated so to speak, so I am sure that you are as happy as a sand boy that there is not closure of the profession.

As to anonymity- yes there is a good reason , thank you for asking.

sunseeker

[davidh]

Aug 30, 2009 8:48:19 GMT seekerofwisdom said:

David, I believe you have a long history of association with the unregulated-even before they were unregulated so to speak, so I am sure that you are as happy as a sand boy that there is not closure of the profession.

As to anonymity- yes there is a good reason , thank you for asking.

sunseeker

Two points for clarification.

1. I'm not at all happy that there is not full closure of the profession in the UK.

2. Your need for anonymity exists - but only in your own head.
Unless of course someone is being a bit of a Tinker and making multiple posts using different usernames .

[seekerofwisdom]

1. I'm not at all happy that there is not full closure of the profession in the UK.

Really David? Pull the other leg it's got bells on! Why belong to an organisation that has a training arm that spews out these minimally trained persons at regular intervals (some mentored by your good self, of course) it makes no sense to me either unless you have a financial interest somewhere.

So what are you and your members organisation doing to close it? Now that's a good joke !

Anne Utherseeker

[blinda]

Sunseeker,

I dont think that very many FHPs undertake a degree- you are a ittle biased here perhaps since that is what you did ,I believe?

Maybe not “very many” do in comparison to the amount of newly trained FHPs, but the ones that have spent an observation day at my surgery have. IMO, it`s not about numbers, as I said before; I have always encouraged anyone who has an interest in foot health to do the fulltime degree. If you call promoting the BSc Podiatry degree after private training as being bias, then yes I am. Along with many university staff/SCP members.

There is a world of difference between allowing someone who plans on embarking on a degree to watch your clinic , and a FHP who you happen to like on a personal level ,to attend for mutual benefit- I think this is what you implied was the outcome?

I disagree. What makes you think that FHPs are not interested in progression of their career? In all cases, I had never previously met any of the FHPs (including Andy), or A-level college leavers, prior to them contacting me to arrange an observational day. I treated them all with the same respect and encouragement to embark on the degree. As I have said before; this has been approved and positively encouraged by a local podiatry school.

It seems that you are arguing your point to suit yourself.

Ohkaaaaaaaaaaaaaay….so that will be debating a point then?

You really need to understand that the large majority of SCP pods do not want to associate with the unregistered sector. And please do not say that they are here to stay so we may as well improve their skills.

I don`t really need to understand anything that you have no evidence to back up. I couldn`t give a rodents posterior who you don`t want to associate with, however you are not in a position to speak for “the majority of SCP pods” unless you have specifically undertaken an interview with each member.

I think you have misunderstood the gist of my previous posts on this subject. I am not on an `improving the skills of the unregulated sector` crusade. My interests are two-fold;

1)To communicate with business competition in my area, (which involves talking to GPs, physios, chiropractors, Pods, grandparented, FHPs, reflexologists, pedicurists, workers for Age Concern, etc) This is a reasonable marketing investigation and purely in the interests of my private practice.

2) To encourage anyone with an interest in foothealth to undertake the BSc. If, for whatever reason, this is beyond their personal circumstance, I then keep the lines of communication open so that they feel comfortable with referring patients beyond their scope of practice to me. This is obviously beneficial for the patient and me.

I wasn`t for one moment going to say that the unregistered are here to stay, that would be stating the bleedin` obvious. However, I see little point in alienating such ones. Hostility does not encourage them to investigate podiatry; it just prevents them from making appropriate referrals and progressing in their choice of career.

Bel

Oh, and with regard to;

Bel changes her mind to fit in with the forum where she is posting . eg-on Pod Arena she claims never to promote the unregulated, yet here back on her old stomping ground , she is happy to have them at her clinic. Sorry if I seem confused, ,but that doesnt seem to make sense to me. I know the question has bee asked before Bel, and I address this to you and not your mouthpiece ,David, , but why exactly do you belong to the SCP when your ethics are not in line with theirs?

Again, for your benefit, I repeat;

In case you hadn`t understood the gist of my previous posts about unregulated practitioners, I do not `promote FHPs`. I have always encouraged anyone who has an interest in foot health to do the fulltime degree.

I am the same person here as on PodA, why would I not be? I have also "claimed" here that I do not promote the unregulated . Promoting the unregulated would be promoting/advertising the private training schools, where have I done this? David is not my mouthpiece, not sure why you would think that he is. Whilst we may both be of the opinion that FHPs do not eat babies, I am not in agreement with him in that I AM happy that there is not full closure of the profession in the UK! If we had then the professional progression of Podiatry would be near impossible. It was only by pushing flexible boundaries (not possible with functional closure) that we have podiatric surgeons, prescribing rights (albeit limited currently) methods of investigation previously only open to other Health professionals (eg ultrasound) etc, etc. But that deserves another thread. My ethics are NOT in contradiction to the Societies, as I do NOT TRAIN the unregulated sector. In fact, I do the exact opposite by being “happy to have them at my clinic”, I am promoting the BSc degree; Once more boys `n gals; I have always encouraged anyone who has an interest in foot health to do the fulltime degree.

[blinda]

Bel, don't argue your point to suit yourself - it's very naughty and not what everyone else does on here at all .

Sorry Sir, must try harder not to deliberate a point when being questioned further

[seekerofwisdom]

Bel
I will keep it short , I dont want to repeat myself nor become a bit of a bore........

You havent actually explained why you are a member of the SCP.

At no point did you mention that Andy/HCFM was undertaking a degree.

FHPS do not and are unlikey to refer on to pods. I am damned if I am going to spend good time encouraging them to do so- it would be a pointless exercise .

If closure of the profession would restrict the expanding of the boundaries, how do you apply that logic to the other health professions that are closed? Have they failed to thrive and push the boundaries? I do not believe that it has been detrimental for them, just the opposite, they do not have unregulated practitioners trying to undermine the profession.

sunseeker

[blinda]

Bel
I will keep it short , I dont want to repeat myself nor become a bit of a bore........

I thank you for your pithy post

You havent actually explained why you are a member of the SCP.

For my own reasons. I don`t see what that has to do with this thread, ie promoting "good practice" in unregulated.

At no point did you mention that Andy/HCFM was undertaking a degree.

You`re right. I didn`t. Whether he is or isn`t, is his business.

FHPS do not and are unlikey to refer on to pods. I am damned if I am going to spend good time encouraging them to do so- it would be a pointless exercise

.

Well, some do. Up to you if you don`t want the referrals.

If closure of the profession would restrict the expanding of the boundaries, how do you apply that logic to the other health professions that are closed? Have they failed to thrive and push the boundaries? I do not believe that it has been detrimental for them, just the opposite, they do not have unregulated practitioners trying to undermine the profession.

Good question. Mind if I copy and paste this, far more interesting subject on to another thread?

Cheers,
Bel

[davidh]

Aug 30, 2009 13:08:42 GMT seekerofwisdom said:

1. I'm not at all happy that there is not full closure of the profession in the UK.

Really David? Pull the other leg it's got bells on! Why belong to an organisation that has a training arm that spews out these minimally trained persons at regular intervals (some mentored by your good self, of course) it makes no sense to me either unless you have a financial interest somewhere.

So what are you and your members organisation doing to close it? Now that's a good joke !

Come to that, what are you and your members organisation doing to close it?
Now that's a good joke!

Seriously - do you honestly believe that antagonising FHPs will somehow lead to closure of the profession?

[seekerofwisdom]

David, as usual you have wriggled out of answering the question which was "what is your organisation doing to try and close the profession?"

Also, you have not declared your interest in belonging to an organisation that is involved with training the unregulated.

Seriously - do you honestly believe that antagonising FHPs will somehow lead to closure of the profession?

I don't think anyone said that, did they?

[davidh]

Sept 2, 2009 5:33:39 GMT seekerofwisdom said:

David, as usual you have wriggled out of answering the question which was "what is your organisation doing to try and close the profession?"

Right now - nothing as far as I am aware.
Now - back at you - what is your organisation doing to try and close the profession?

Also, you have not declared your interest in belonging to an organisation that is involved with training the unregulated.

I'm on the Editorial Committee of the BChPA Jornal, and I mentor the odd FHP. No money is received for either.
Tell us your name.

Seriously - do you honestly believe that antagonising FHPs will somehow lead to closure of the profession?

I don't think anyone said that, did they?

So do you agree that all this sniping at FHPs is purely malicious then?