I've published an article on my case with the HCPC which may be of interest to those following proceedings with links to the referred documents at www.mark-russell.net
Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
The legal arguments regarding what constitutes an offence under the Health Professions Order in relation to Protected Titles will certainly be of interest to those who practice podiatry in the private sector - as it would appear that in order to secure a conviction the HCPC must demonstrate there was an intention to deceive - for without that, there can be no offence.
In recent days I have received a number of emails from colleagues who have also deregistered but still practice under the banner of podiatry or chiropody. To quote one:
The same approach taken by other colleagues....
So where does this leave us presently? Very much like my own situation I guess - in limbo. It would appear that there is nothing to stop anyone from calling themselves a chiropodist or podiatrist providing the make it explicitly clear they are not registered with the HCPC. So for private practitioners, why bother? Perhaps the time really has come for a General Podiatric Council - something I'm sure many would welcome...
Just to update the post on the link above, I have now heard back from the Magistrate's Court administration as they have tabled a new hearing for the 30th April. Round three anyone? Personally, I'm becoming quite bored with it.
Page 1 of 2
-
Attached Files:
-
-
-
If what the 2 non-registrants are implying is true, then the following, taken from the HCPC website is an attempt to mislead the professions:
We currently regulate the following professions: arts therapists, biomedical scientists, chiropodists / podiatrists, clinical scientists, dietitians, hearing aid dispensers, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, paramedics, physiotherapists, practitioner psychologists, prosthetists / orthotists, radiographers, social workers in England and speech and language therapists.
All of these professions have at least one professional title that is protected by law, including those shown above. This means, for example, that anyone using the titles 'physiotherapist' or 'dietitian' must be registered with us.
It is a criminal offence for someone to claim that they are registered with us when they are not, or to use a protected title that they are not entitled to use. We will prosecute people who commit these crimes.
What have they to say, I think we should hear.
If their claim is untrue then the position of being registered with the HCPC is exactly the same as with the CPSM ! Is it likely that the legislation changed nothing ? -
I'm sure the HCPC would be happy to answer your questions. Or perhaps they won't comment at the moment. You can but ask. You can also write to Dan Poulter at the Department of Health and ask that your views on regulation under the HCPC are taken into consideration by the "officials". Maybe it will help. I have a number of colleagues to thank for writing to the HCPC in recent weeks to question them about the misleading and damaging press release that they refused to amend initially - but eventually added a note for editors after repeated requests. I guess there is strength in numbers after all - and one wonders what a few dozen or hundred of similar dedication might have achieved? You know who you are - thank you again.
Attached Files:
-
-
It`s not too late to do either, preferably both!
Little effort is required to pen a short email to Dan Poulter and/or the HCPC, expressing concern over the risk that current legislation puts our patients at. If it helps, I can forward a template to anyone wishing to do so. PM me. -
-
Blinda
You've made it clear that you have no problem with people treating feet provided they don't falsely claim to be HCPC/Podiatrists. (An earlier post)
So I'm can't quite see your concern with functional closure as against protection of title.
Surely just firming up the current legislation, removing the 'intent to deceive' bit would satisfy you ?
Regards -
I`m not seeking personal satisfaction; just a change in legislation to prevent practitioners who have been found `unfit to practice` from practising by protecting specific function, which may or may not be functional closure.
Cheers,
Bel -
Blinds
I understand your position.
However, we have previously explored how functional closure could be implemented and it's almost certainly impractical.
That leaves us with preventing those found 'unfit to practice' to continue practising.
This would require a law banning those 'struck off' from treating feet under any guise, rather like a 'Megan's Law', possibly 'Mark's Law'. A field day for the lawyers and again, most unlikely.
I believe it's no good coming up with a 'want' unless you can provide a practically workable method !
Regards
ps. If of course future litigation should find misuse of title proven, then would that not solve the problem ? -
As Mark highlighted earlier; without proven intent to deceive, implied or otherwise, there cannot be a criminal prosecution for misuse of title....the HCPC are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the Stick Insect got stuck on a sticky bun. -
-
Words, words and yet more words !
There are a plethora of 'trades' dealing with/treating feet, not so teeth and ears.
Please, a simple method to stop the 'registered yet struck off' from taking up another 'foot trade', without affecting those who were never registered.
Thanks -
-
I`m sure you`re not trying to be insulting, John. But, most will agree that Mark`s course of action cannot be regarded as mere `words`.
- Dental nurses,
- Orthodontic therapists,
- Dental hygienists,
- Dental therapists,
- Dental technicians,
- Clinical dental technicians
- and, of course, Dentists.
Hearing Healthcare Teams are often made up of;
- Assistant audiologist
- Associate audiologist
- Hearing Aid Dispenser
- Audiologist
- Clinical Scientist (Audiology)
Maybe a change in legislation will affect those who were never registered. Who knows? Surely, the crux of the matter is that we require more meaningful regulation of practitioners so the HCPC can realistically offer some protection to the public, which current legislation completely fails on. -
Mark
No ideological stance at all. Re. My view on functional closure-read earlier threads, it's all there.
Blinda.
Non of your examples are comparable with the foot trades. Do you think that legislation affecting 'the others' would ever succeed if it meant putting them out of business ?
OK, a complicated method will do, please !
Regards -
I wasn't citing comparable examples, just pointing out there are diverse sub-groups within professional teams, which are successfully regulated individually by title and specific function. The same could work for the foothealth industry.
As I said, whether this would adversely affect, or require statutory regulation of those who have never been registered, I don't know. All I know is, the recommendation, including that of the proposed barring scheme, of a gov't review into PoT by the LC report could lend itself to offering better protection of the public, via protection of specific function. -
Blinda
It all sounds too Big Brotherish to me, and totally unnecessary.
It seems we're in danger of getting on a roundabout and being unable to get off, as far discussing this subject goes. Various views were comprehensively discussed in the 'How would protection of function work'. I stand by what I said Mar 8 #23.
Regards -
Cheers,
Bel -
The difference is that there are different industries involved in feet apart from medical - beauty, holistic and of course massage. So nail techs would not be able to cut nails, pedicures would be banned, no more reflexology, massage from the ankles up only. And what about biomechanics and orthotics? And there are even medical pedicures undertaken by podiatrists. It's all terribly blurred
-
-
Just in case anyone was busy spreading sandwiches for a day out on Wednesday, the case has now been adjourned indefinitely by the prosecution.
-
Hi Mark
Can they actually do this? It seems that it leaves you in limbo at their pleasure which is hardly just and was not, presumably, the purpose of the judge in the Crown Court.
Cheers
Bill -
No, the case will have to be disposed of properly, but as you might expect there are a couple of minor matters to be resolved beforehand.
Best wishes
Mark -
Could cause a rush of those private practice resigning from the HCPC !
-
-
Blinda
Excellent. Let us know when you do ! -
-
As you seem to be acting on Blinda's behalf. I will if she will !
Hope it's not all talk and no action. -
I think you may have misunderstood me, John. Nowhere have I stated that I am personally about to deregister. Your comment; "Could cause a rush of those private practice resigning from the HCPC !"
Prompted me to say;
That said, IF it proves that the HCPC cannot lawfully prosecute a deregistred practitioner who continues to use their earned professional title and makes it very clear that they choose to no longer be on the HCPC register, then I see little point for private practioners to remain on it, IMO. But, further clarification is required before anyone takes any action. My hope, as you know but do not agree with, is that there may be a change in legislation as a result of heightened public and professional awareness by Mark's case, so voluntary reregistration would not be necessary.
Cheers,
Bel -
Blinda
What a disappointment. IF, WOULD, BUT, means NO; all talk, actions speak louder than words and give a degree of credibility !
Regards -
-
Blinda
It's interesting that, on a discussion/debating site, you should assume any view other than your own is meant as personal criticism; it's certainly not. Certainly it's incorrect to say that I've criticised every comment you have made, on the contrary. If you perceive it to be so, I'm sorry, but I could not have anticipated your hypersensitivity.
I will refrain from replying in future to any comments you post.
I look forward to hearing what action you have taken when you are at liberty to do so, remember however, to effect some change usually involves an element of risk !
Regards -
I agree, best you refrain from replying to my posts if you are going to continue to be personal. -
you demanded to know why I won`t de-register immediately
!!!!!!!! -
-
I already have.
shepherds may change but sheep remain sheep -
Good man. Let us know when it's up and running and seeking registrants.
-
you demanded to know why I won't de-register immediately !!!!!
I had hoped that the writer of the above would retract the above statement, sadly it has not been.
For the record, it is a completely false allegation, designed to misrepresent me.
As a quick glance at the preceding posts in this thread will show, at no time have I questioned the writer as to the rationale for any action or non action.
I hope this sort of behaviour is not a reflection of the profession's members or that to come. -
Attached Files:
-
-
Just heard today that the "understanding'" amounts to a new trial. A case management hearing is scheduled this Friday at Westminster Magistrates Court and a new trial date will be set then. What has become clear is that this is nothing more than a malicious and spiteful prosecution. I have been given papers over the last few days from another colleague that deregistered just before myself in 2008 and who has not been prosecuted as she has successfully argued there is no provision for prosecution under the HPO for misuse of title in the circumstances described here. I will write a summary of the current regulatory position viv-a-vis podiatry and the HCPC later this week, but it is our understanding that providing you do not hold out to be HCPC Registered when you are not, then you are perfectly able to use the titles chiropodist or podiatrist.
Colleagues are urged to contact their own professional body and ask them to secure an independent legal opinion (the HCPC are refusing to comment) on the foregoing. However, as the registration reminders come though the post box in the coming days, maybe some of you in private practice - at least - might think about sending them back to the Registrar with a note to say you will consider cancelling your registration unless the HCPC makes a public position statement on the weaknesses surrounding the PoT legislation in our profession. As someone recently remarked, "Letter writing is fine, but when you have hold of their wallets, the hearts and minds follow shortly."
Page 1 of 2
Loading...
- Similar Threads - HCPC Grand Deception
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 1,034
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 1,629
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 1,360
-
- Replies:
- 3
- Views:
- 2,540
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 1,647
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 1,100
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 1,754