At 05:06 08/09/2009, you wrote:
>Julian Bradley wrote:
> > At 19:56 07/09/2009, you wrote:
> >> Any of you get the slightest bit miffed that the lay members of your
> >> professional/disciplinary bodies are also lay members of bodies that
> >> regulate/discipline quacks?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >
> > What's the problem?
> >
> > They are also members of that distinguished group that includes:
> >
> > MPs and ex-MPs
> > Lawyers
> > The people that regulate civil servants (and give those who gave the MPs
> > excellent advice on expenses claims) a pay rise or promotion.
> >
> > Can you think of a better group of people to regulate the professions
> > and ensure their integrity?
> >
> > Julian
>
>I'd rather not be regulated by someone who also regulates chiropractors
>I suspect a lay member that does so can't tell science from quackery.
>
>Jeff
Whatever the merits of the lay member involved, the issues before
regulators are most often to do with integrity and honesty. If
detailed technical knowledge is a part of the disciplinary issue,
then it is up to the parties concerned to bring evidence to the panel
on these issues, as in a court of law where neither judge nor jury
are expected to have technical expertise.
Problems can arise when the panel chooses to ignore these
professional witnesses, but that is not inherently any more likely
with lay members than with professional members (who may also have
their own biases and agenda).
As far as I can see from the GCC website failure to maintain adequate
records and inappropriate use of X-Ray investigations are the two
commonest technical issues, and there are no cases in which it is
obvious that belief or lack of belief in chiropractic techniques
would be terribly relevant.
What surprises me is that the General Pharmaceutical Council is only
just being established!
Julian
|