Print

---

I am delighted to have provoked at least some thoughtful (if slightly
personally pejorative) reaction; may we now learn what the particular skills
and competencies those who have elected to join the indicative register of
Scientists in Health Care have that those persons, otherwise eligible to
register with the Council for Registration of Scientists in Health Care, who
are already registered with either the CPSM or the General Medical Council
do not have?

I have no objection to the concept of an indicative register for Clinical
Scientists. What I object to in the strongest possible terms is its current
title; persons on that register do not have and should not claim, even by
the narrow implication of the title chosen, a monopoly of the application of
the scientific method to the care of patients.  A more accurate title would
be  "The Council for the Registration of a minority of Scientists in Health
Care". Clinical Scientists obviously perceive themselves to be a clear and
distinctive group. Clinical Scientists are a subset of the scientists in
health care, the term does not imply any sort of monopoly of the application
of science. Thus why not use the title "The Council for the Registration of
Clinical Scientists"?

Robert Forrest

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Christopher P. Price (CBIO) 7241
> Sent: 24 June 1999 18:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Clinical Chemistry & The Human Rights Act 1998
>
>
> Professor Forrest’s bed time thoughts perpetuate some misconceptions that
> should be addressed.  Membership of the voluntary register currently
> administered by the Registration Council for Scientists in Health
> Care is only
> open to those who have trained, demonstrated their competence and
> practiced
> as clinical scientists;  at the time that the register was
> created legal opinion
> indicated that this was the appropriate position to take.  It is
> recognised that in
> some other spheres membership of more than one register is allowed;
> however, under the legislation embodied in the creation of the Health
> Professions Council and the proposed mandatory requirement for a
> commitment to maintain competence, it is questionable whether any
> professional will be able to maintain competence in more than one
> profession –
> or his/her employer provide the opportunity to do so.
>
> Professor Forrest’s reference to what the uncharitable might
> think indicates a
> lack of understanding of the purpose of registration.  The primary aim of
> registration is to protect the patient;  it is a commitment by
> the employer and
> the employee to ensure that standards of competence are maintained in the
> provision of services to patients.  The employers responsibility
> is to ensure that
> all practitioners are state registered and that appropriate
> facilities exist for the
> attainment and maintenance of competencies relevant to that
> profession.  The
> employees responsibility is to achieve and maintain his/her
> competence whilst
> conducting him/herself in an appropriate manner.
>
> There is absolutely no intention to “keep out” well qualified
> MLSOs or “medics”
> and to imply this is to show a lack of understanding of
> registration.  It is not a
> qualification to gain, a scalp to take or a club to join.  If a
> professional can
> genuinely gain the competencies and more importantly maintain them, then
> one might argue that that freedom should exist.  However, one
> would have to
> ask for what purpose?
>
>
> Professor C P Price
> Chairman
> Registration Council for Scientists in Health Care
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%