Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Vote in AGM to protect your profession!!!!!!

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by fluffpinkkitten, Jun 30, 2015.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Right ... being a member of the Society you should have had one of these. On the back is your voting form. If you read ordinary resolution 3 ...It was submitted by a guy named Chris Hunt. This resolution is so, so important. This is a vote for functional closure of the profession...something which must be done to keep out the FHPs. You may want to place an x in the box on the back of the form FOR this motion. Of further interest are special resolutions 1 and 2 ....These talk about admitting "assistant practitioners" onto the society. You may wish to put an x in the against box?? Just sayin. ..lol. This has to be returned by post to the Society no later than 4th July. Please share this page with anyone sympathetic to the cause.
     
  2. Alan Whitby

    Alan Whitby Member

    It isn't going to happen. For decades Society members were involved in the training of Foot Care Assistants (and now Podiatry Assistants) and more recently some have been "training" such people as Age Concern volunteers in nail cutting. Even the FHPs have been huffy about the latter. Once the Society allowed this (or demonstrated they were powerless to stop members doing this) they lost any perceived moral high ground over the issue of functional closure.

    Why be so worried about FHPs? If you are trained to the gold standard and are good at what you do, long-term you should have nothing to fear from the competition.
     
  3. Two things. The Society is not able to deliver any amendments to the legislation that would permit any protected function. Only Parliament - and possibly the HCPC - have powers to do that. I would be interested to read what the resolution actually said. Second point, I don't care much for the way 'FHPs' are being treated by some in the profession. They are not committing any offence and are practising legally. That there may be an issue about their competence or training is neither here nor there. They are doing nothing wrong. They practise, what the public recognise as chiropody - the palliative care of minor foot problems. The problem is that this palliative care is what the majority of the registered profession carry out on a day to day basis, no more, no less.So I guess that is where the fear of competition stems from Alan. If the presence of alternatively trained chiropodists was the only issue with current regulation, personally I wouldn't lose much sleep over it - but of course, the same loophole that allows unregistered practitioners also means those who are struck off can also remain in practice - and that is the most important reason to protect function.
     
  4. Alan Whitby

    Alan Whitby Member

    I obviously have no problems with FHPs who work and behave in a professional manner – as a grandparented pod myself (having trained with SMAE back in the 1970s) I recognise that it is only a matter of timing why so many current FHPs haven’t also become grandparented pods. We could go over the errors made on all sides when indicative closure came in that has created the current situation, but it is water under the bridge now.

    You make a very valid point though about those removed from the HCPC register still being able to practice under a different title. It seems that many of these have been removed from the register because of all sorts of non-treatment issues when working for the NHS – such as accessing inappropriate websites while working. If the public has not been put at risk, then why not allow them to work in private practice under a different title? Of course, if there has been a danger to the public, and that has been the reason for the HCPC’s action, then surely their professional association along with their insurance company could exercise the appropriate pressure to desist. If they had a mind to.
     
  5. That's a whole different argument, Alan. I quite agree that the current medical regulatory environment is punitive and indiscriminate. When one reads through the various FtP hearings and consider the offences, many, it would appear, are simple employee/employer disciplinary matters rather than what one may constitute as being public safeguarding issues. But it would be impossible to legislate for a regime that you propose. Besides, when someone is struck-off from the statutory register, they do not need to change their title to continue in practice - they simply need to state they are no longer registered to maintain promotion as a chiropodist or podiatrist.
     
Loading...

Share This Page