Before beginning to dissect the three and a half pages of text produced by the panel at yesterday's hearing, I want to take time to consider the phrase 'struck off'.
It is a little relic from the old days, which referred to the action of a man with a pen striking the name of another from a written register. It has the grandness of ritual written into it. 'Struck off' includes a gesture, a performance, and an audience. All this was necessary to invest the meaning of the phrase with the importance of the act and the magnitude of the misdemeanour perpetrated by the offender.
For those professions that have their roots in those old days, it is understandable that they keep the nomenclature, repeat the ritual, recite the words. It is a kind of homage paid to the pioneers who worked hard to establish a practice and who tried to set and maintain a standard. Without the work of these people who came before, it says, no-one would enjoy the fruits of this labour today.
Why, tho, is it within the language of the HPC?
The HPC is new, was brought into being by the Privy Council under New Labour, and is set up on the understanding that old professions are a danger to the public and must be transformed. Leaving aside for the moment the small detail that the HPC does not regulate the old professions, it is worth wondering why they would begin to dress themselves in this borrowed garb.
When the HPC first emerged onto the scene it did so with all appropriate marketing. Four posters from an early campaign are pinned to the wall on the way to the rooms of the hearing. Here is the text of their message:
1. A picture of a man dressed up as Dr McCoy from Star Trek on the Bridge of the Star Ship Enterprise. The Headline: "You can trust me... I'm the real McCoy." The small print: "Who can say if a health professional is genuine? The fact is that any genuine health professional must shortly be registered with the Health Professionals Council. The HPC is the statutory UK body appointed to regulate and maintain the standards of 12 health professions. To use one of the professional titles below, pretenders have until July 8th 2005 to meet our criteria. If they prove to be genuine, they can join over 150,000 professionals already on our register. Anything less and they're on a different planet."
Leaving aside the facile tone of this poster, I want simply to point out the argument that is being put to use. Before the 8th July 2005 the health professionals are pretenders, afterwards those accepted onto the register of the HPC are real.
2. A picture of a woman with a very very very long nose and rouged cheeks, looking a little like Pinocchio. The words on a poster behind her: "The Muscle Management Consultancy PH.one.Y." The voice bubble: "professional titles? to tell you the truth they're a thing of the past!" The small print: Who can say if a health professional is genuine? Sometimes letters after a name don't prove anything. Anyone who is a genuine health professional with genuine qualifications must shortly be registered with the Health Professionals Council ... after that telling lies becomes an offence."
3. Picture of a woman in a spot light, wearing something in very large check. The speech bubble: "Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be ... a Health Professional!". The Small Print: "Who can say if health professional is genuine. You don't become qualified overnight. All genuine health professionals must shortly be registered with the Health Professions Council... after that they are acting beyond the law."
4. Picture of a man in a white coat and a swimming hat standing in front of a wall of certificates. Speech bubble: "Fitness to Practise? I can show you hundreds of certificates." He is holding up a certificate got from school days proclaiming him swimming champion 1978. The Small Print: "Some qualifications aren't worth the paper they're written on. All genuine health professionals must soon be registered with the health Professionals Council to prove their credentials. ... All true professionals have until 8 July 2005 to become registered with us or lose the right to use titles listed below. Those that lie will be in deep water.
In this two-dimensional world there would appear to be only liars or truth tellers, fakers or real things, criminals or innocents, locals or aliens. Invisible in this simple scene is the One in charge of telling the difference, the One whose job it is to hold the scales and to decide. This is the HPC.
Is this a good time to ask: who, exactly, are these people, hidden just off screen?
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I am a member of the public whose experience of the HPC warrants serious concerns about it, in particular about its suitability to regulate the psychological professions. Our experience was with an HPC registrant belonging to the Arts Therapies. This is a rather anomalous group amongs those regulated by the HPC, in that it is the only one with an explicit psychological component. We have found the HPC's handling of our case damaging in the extreme, and impoverishing of the registrant's civic responsibility, humanity and genuine opportunities for meaningful professional development.
I have just sent off the latest in a long line of letters to the HPC's FTP director, which I copy below in case it may be of interest to readers. It is not my best work, but it does make points that need to be made.
"
Dear (director of FTP)
re: Abuse of my son and myself on the part of music therapist(HPC registrant).
Thank you for your letters of 8th and 13th October. I have also received a letter from (HPC's CEO)
withdrawing the offer of a meeting, to which I will respond – with copy to the CHRE – as soon as I am able.
I reply with considerable delay, as has often been the case, as the impact of (HPC's registrant)'s harmful practice has directly and indirectly caused severe deterioration in my conditions’ symptoms and the emergence of new ones, and created serious unnecessary difficulties in my son’s and in my own - already very complicated – lives.
I will keep the matter of the Subject Access Request separate , as it is rather technical: I need to study the Freedom of Information Act more closely. I would, however, like to ask you whether I could see copies of your correspondence with (HPC registrant), which you mention in your letter of 13th October 2008.
Regarding the new allegations that I submitted on 7th July 2008 – and that the HPC had undertaken with the CHRE to look at as they had never previously been considered by an investigating panel – I note that no satisfactory response has been forthcoming.
I would like to know:
- who took the extraordinary decision that the new allegations, emerged much later than the original panel meeting and clearly never considered by an investigating panel, were not “new”. It is true that they are against the same HPC registrant, but they are demonstrably entirely new;
- what are this/these person/s qualifications for making what comes across as a personal and arbitrary decision;
- in what way the new allegations do not “meet the test”?
For example, I pointed out the fact that (HPC registrant)had undermined my authority in my son’s eyes, thus leading him to challenge the boundaries I set and to become physically violent towards me. (HPC registrant)'s spectacularly incompetent handling of her few – but immensely damaging – sessions with my son resulted in my being regularly hit and physically harmed by my son, through no fault of his. He even went as far as threatening me with a knife-like letter-opener. What he learned from (HPC registrant) was what he repeated to me: “you are disabled, you are useless”. What (HPC registrant) did was the equivalent of putting a weapon in a child’s hand. How can the HPC imply that this does not matter enough?
Another example is that of (HPC registrant) extraordinarily incompetent interference in my son’s transfer to a non-bullying, accessible school. This has had immensely negative consequences for my son, for me, for the local community and for our Local Education Authority, which has been burdened with a hefty (we are talking six figures) bill as a result of (HPC registrant)'s ignorant actions. How can the HPC imply that this does not matter enough?
In what way must a registrant be more obviously incompetent about – and dangerous to – children and disabled people to merit censure?
You mention my surprise – as a member of the public – that nothing at all is done about a registrant who has caused harm, made errors and repeatedly demonstrated incompetence. I find your comments truly extraordinary, and meriting of being brought to the public’s attention. If members of the public have been harmed and have been victims of registrants' mistakes and incompetence, it is essential for their recovery that the harm/errors/incompetence are acknowledged – at the very least. If this does not happen, the members of the public are doubly abused – firstly by the registrant, and secondly by the HPC’s refusal to acknowledge the harm.
It is in fact the HPC’s own naming-and-shaming policy that is harshly punitive of registrants. This can only lead to registrants’ submitting, where possible, false information when confronted with an investigation. Most of us victims of abuse would only ask for an acknowledgement, an apology and an undertaking of training, not a striking off or an “unfit to practise” decision. Although (HPC registrant)is clearly hampered in her practice by her own personal, uninformed and outdated prejudices, by her over-confident approach to matters about which she has no competence, by her inability to keep her research interests separate from her clinical practice, and by her prurience, the most important thing remains for her to acquire full and detailed awareness of the catalogue of mistakes that has so needlessly harmed a child and his family for life, and for her to undergo training in the areas in which she would need it in order to become a practitioner that can safely practise with children and disabled people.
It is only the HPC which advocates an all-or-nothing approach. As our case amply proves, this is a way of going about things that is harmful both to the public and to the damaging registrant, who is denied an opportunity for learning from their mistakes and progress their professional development. Our case has so far proven over and over again that the HPC’s claim to protect the public is simply inaccurate and misleading.
On this subject, and finally, I would repeat the last question in my letter of 17th September 2008:
“I would like to know what provisions the HPC – as protector of the public - has in place for those members of the public who have been the victims of HPC registrants’ errors, harm and incompetence.”
I do not believe it fair that the public should continue to be duped into the belief that the HPC exists to “protect the public”, or that it fosters responsibility and professional development in its registrants.
I look forward to hearing from you with, I hope, an answer to my questions. As I said, I will treat the FoIA matter separately, but trust that I can in the meantime see copies of the correspondence you mentioned.
Yours sincerely"
Keep up the good work! The HPC does indeed need a lot of watching.
by the way, more details on our experience are at www.bringbackourjoy.com
Thanks for your comment - you open up important questions about how an issue is properly resolved. The HPC's claim to 'protect the public' remains at such a vague level as to mean anything and nothing at all. This is not practical and seems to serve as a smoke screen which does little to promote confidence in the system. Janet.
Post a Comment