Dear all,
To add to the debate, by and large I personally am unhappy with the
increasing rise in regulatory processes - I would feel happier with
statutory regulation if its intention was to empower and well as protect
citizens.
This is what I have said in my response to the consultation process:
"I am opposed to statutory regulation of applied psychologists through the
Health Professions Council. My view is based on the argument put forward
by the lawyers Stone and Matthews (in Stone, J. and and Matthews, J.
(1996) Complementary Medicine and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press)
in relation to complementary health care. They contrast the orthodox
doctor-patient relationship, in which the doctor is the expert and the
patient the passive recipient of treatment, with a relationship based on
mutual responsibilities and commitment in which information, and thus
power, is shared. This power sharing model is one which is at the heart of
modernising the NHS , and, in my view, the profession of clinical
psychology. Stone and Matthews argue that ironically,a legal model of
regulation ( although ostensibly intended to protect patients' interests )
may well be damaging to patient autonomy, since it carries with it an
implication that patients have a passive rather than an active position
within the therapeutic relationship.
Instead, Stone and Matthews call for a patient-centred, non-statutory
regulatory framework with clear systems for registration, a strong code of
ethics and effective and accessible grievance procedures. Such a model
acknowledges patients ( or clients) and their advocates, in the case of
children and others who are vulnerable, as autonomous agents, capable of
making personal choices and with obligations to play an active part in
interventions. I believe that our professional body, the BPS, already
provides such a framework.
If statutory regulation becomes inevitable, I would prefer it to be done
under the auspices of the BPS, since in my opinion this holds a better
chance of retaining values of empowering patients/ clients than does the
framework of an independent regulatory body which I fear stands at risk of
undue political and "establishment" influence."
However, I am afraid that my trust in the BPS as a body that supports the
empowerment of non-professionals may be misplaced - but at least this
would avoid further regulation..... I can see that others may feel that
regulation through the HPC may be a better bet, and they may well be
right... though I fail to see that it can be relevant for educational and
occupational and community psychologists. But what will happen is that
we will have both processes if the regulation through the HPC goes through.
be interested in others' views.
Annie
--On 24 March 2005 11:18 +0000 "Paul@home"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this to our attention Annie,
>
> Deeply worrying stuff in terms of cp. I agree with Annie, we woudl benefit
> from some debate on this....
>
> We know how ineffective similar professional regulating bodies have been
> re: the Medical Research Council which has been criticised for doing more
> to protect the interests of doctors than patients. That aside, what are
> the implications for our talk of getting CP BPS recognition?
>
> If the BPS has recommended that seven of it ten divisions should come
> under the Health Act provision which seeks to 'regulate professions that
> are concered (wholly or partly) with the physical or mental health of
> individuals' would this mean that if we become a 'recognised' part of the
> profession of psychology, that we too might come under this provision? If
> so, could this effectively butcher our network through cleaving open
> divisions between those who would be legally permitted to call themselves
> community psychologists (and prepared to pay out yet another subscription
> fee to belong to yet another professional body) and those who would not!!
> I don't know the answers I am afraid....
>
>
> kind thoughts
>
> paul
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of amitchel
> Sent: 16 March 2005 23:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FWD: Registration of Clinical Psychologists
>
>
>> Dear all,
> ===
> You may like to look at and comment, as explained in the document, on the
> proposals for clinical and other
> applied psychologists to become registered under the Health Professions
> Council. This will be compulsory for employment in the NHS (and will cost
> you!).
>
> We might like to debate what this means for community psychologists as
> applied
> practitioners.
>
>
> Annie
>
> ___________________________________
>
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ___________________________________
>
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at
> [log in to unmask]
Annie Mitchell
Lecturer in Psychology,
Clinical Director, Doctorate in Clinical and Community Psychology,
School of Psychology,
Washington Singer Building,
University of Exeter,
Exeter,
EX4 4QG
Phone 01392 264621 or
Liz Mears, Programme Administrator 01392 403184
___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at [log in to unmask]
|