Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 Just sent letter to my MP asking his opinion and reqesting response on NMC, sorry I was too late to add report. Await with anticipation his reply. Jeanette > Dear nne, > >Today's BMJ (2001; 322:816) summarises recent serious concerns from the House of Commons Select Committee on Health about public health, especially our medical colleagues contribution. I looked up the original report on the internet via www.parliament.uk/commons/hsecom.htm >and hunted around for Health -Second Report, to discover it says quite a bit about Health Visiting (and School Health, and Health Promotion, the HDA, Evidence-Based Policy etc.). > >If anyone is contacting politicians, this powerful report may be most helpful, especially section 76, which includes the following: > " We would like to see a role for health visitors as the key public health resource for all community health care professionals. We are concerned that health visitors are not sufficiently empowered in terms of resources and capacity to carry out wider public health functions beyond their statutory duties. We also think that there is scope for greater integration and co-ordination between health visitors, school and community nurses. We recommend that the role fo the health visitor is reviewed and clarified. We would like to see it developed as a holistic, public health function " > >Hear, hear. > >Woody >UCL. > > I shall be doing all I can to encourage people to write to their MP about > the lack of health visiting in the title of this. As far as I can see we > will still have a health visitor member from each country so we will have a > voice but I agree whole heartedly that this is not enough if midwives can do > it we can too! I will also be hoping that the Welsh National Board will make > a comment about this. I will put my letter on site when it is finished > perhaps others can do the same although I don't think we should use the same > letter we may make our representations stronger by having a consensus to the > argument? > > nne > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 I would also like to know which professional bodies and unions are supporting or questioning this move in change of name and which organisations would have the most clout in terms of being listened to by government bodies? If the name emphasises nursing is the RCN seen as more powerful in defending and assisting practitioners or would the CPHVA with health visitor is the title have the same clout. DO you get my gist? I have not read fully the opinions of any unions or professional groups in helping us in this campaign. Jeanette > Just sent letter to my MP asking his opinion and reqesting response on NMC, sorry I was too late to add report. Await with anticipation his reply. Jeanette > Dear nne, > >Today's BMJ (2001; 322:816) summarises recent serious concerns from the House of Commons Select Committee on Health about public health, especially our medical colleagues contribution. I looked up the original report on the internet via www.parliament.uk/commons/hsecom.htm >and hunted around for Health -Second Report, to discover it says quite a bit about Health Visiting (and School Health, and Health Promotion, the HDA, Evidence-Based Policy etc.). > >If anyone is contacting politicians, this powerful report may be most helpful, especially section 76, which includes the following: > " We would like to see a role for health visitors as the key public health resource for all community health care professionals. We are concerned that health visitors are not sufficiently empowered in terms of resources and capacity to carry out wider public health functions beyond their statutory duties. We also think that there is scope for greater integration and co-ordination between health visitors, school and community nurses. We recommend that the role fo the health visitor is reviewed and clarified. We would like to see it developed as a holistic, public health function " > >Hear, hear. > >Woody >UCL. > > I shall be doing all I can to encourage people to write to their MP about > the lack of health visiting in the title of this. As far as I can see we > will still have a health visitor member from each country so we will have a > voice but I agree whole heartedly that this is not enough if midwives can do > it we can too! I will also be hoping that the Welsh National Board will make > a comment about this. I will put my letter on site when it is finished > perhaps others can do the same although I don't think we should use the same > letter we may make our representations stronger by having a consensus to the > argument? > > nne > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 Bidmead everytime I have a side conversation I think of you. So I am posting something that Jeanette just wrote to me that I found amusing. We were discussing the NMC and Jeanette said, 'Do you think the NMC ought to have a generic name that no one understands as large public bodies do? possibly commodia ! My response to Jeanette is yes it can be called 'Commodia' if it isn't to have Health Visiting in the title I think that is a grand name! On a more serious note if you haven't written to your MP yet why not and the details are again: www.faxyourmp.com Houston >From: j.e.clifton@... >Reply- >To: > , ,@groups\ ..com >Subject: Re: Re: NMC >Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:53:04 BST > > I would also like to know which professional bodies and unions are >supporting or questioning this move in change of name and which >organisations would have the most clout in terms of being listened to by >government bodies? If the name emphasises nursing is the RCN seen as more >powerful in defending and assisting practitioners or would the CPHVA with >health visitor is the title have the same clout. DO you get my gist? I >have not read fully the opinions of any unions or professional groups in >helping us in this campaign. Jeanette > > Just sent letter to my MP asking his opinion and reqesting response on >NMC, sorry I was too late to add report. Await with anticipation his reply. > Jeanette > Dear nne, > > > >Today's BMJ (2001; 322:816) summarises recent serious concerns from the >House of Commons Select Committee on Health about public health, especially >our medical colleagues contribution. I looked up the original report on >the internet via www.parliament.uk/commons/hsecom.htm > >and hunted around for Health -Second Report, to discover it says quite a >bit about Health Visiting (and School Health, and Health Promotion, the >HDA, Evidence-Based Policy etc.). > > > >If anyone is contacting politicians, this powerful report may be most >helpful, especially section 76, which includes the following: > > > " We would like to see a role for health visitors as the key public health >resource for all community health care professionals. We are concerned >that health visitors are not sufficiently empowered in terms of resources >and capacity to carry out wider public health functions beyond their >statutory duties. We also think that there is scope for greater >integration and co-ordination between health visitors, school and community >nurses. We recommend that the role fo the health visitor is reviewed and >clarified. We would like to see it developed as a holistic, public health >function " > > > >Hear, hear. > > > >Woody > >UCL. > > > > I shall be doing all I can to encourage people to write to their MP >about > > the lack of health visiting in the title of this. As far as I can see we > > will still have a health visitor member from each country so we will >have a > > voice but I agree whole heartedly that this is not enough if midwives >can do > > it we can too! I will also be hoping that the Welsh National Board will >make > > a comment about this. I will put my letter on site when it is finished > > perhaps others can do the same although I don't think we should use the >same > > letter we may make our representations stronger by having a consensus to >the > > argument? > > > > nne > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2001 Report Share Posted April 7, 2001 Well I have also sent a letter to my MP and thank you Woody, , for all your letters and information which I have used in the construction of my letter and sent it by email! It feels like a rising responsibility for health visitors to respond to the public health agenda but no public recognition or authority. Has any one seen the list of members for the Children's Task Force? I happened to be at a meeting at the Institute of Child Health. They had just received a little pamphlet on the Task Force (I have not seen it yet at the HA) but looking at the list (unless I have missed something) - guess who might be missing? Yes the CPHVA or any organisation that might have school nursing or HVs in it. Anyway I am going to try and get hold of bigger document and write to the Task Force group - unless they are just concentrating on the sick child. Midwifery is represented. In message <F257JzqNwiGnSqJIc0y00002533@...>, Houston <annamhouston@...> writes > Bidmead everytime I have a side conversation I think of you. So I >am posting something that Jeanette just wrote to me that I found amusing. We >were discussing the NMC and Jeanette said, >'Do you think the NMC ought to have a generic >name that no one understands as large public bodies do? possibly commodia ! >My response to Jeanette is yes it can be called 'Commodia' if it isn't to >have Health Visiting in the title I think that is a grand name! >On a more serious note if you haven't written to your MP yet why not and the >details are again: >www.faxyourmp.com > Houston > >>From: j.e.clifton@... >>Reply- >>To: >> , ,SENATE- >HVSN >>Subject: Re: Re: NMC >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:53:04 BST >> >> I would also like to know which professional bodies and unions are >>supporting or questioning this move in change of name and which >>organisations would have the most clout in terms of being listened to by >>government bodies? If the name emphasises nursing is the RCN seen as more >>powerful in defending and assisting practitioners or would the CPHVA with >>health visitor is the title have the same clout. DO you get my gist? I >>have not read fully the opinions of any unions or professional groups in >>helping us in this campaign. Jeanette >> > Just sent letter to my MP asking his opinion and reqesting response on >>NMC, sorry I was too late to add report. Await with anticipation his reply. >> Jeanette > Dear nne, >> > >> >Today's BMJ (2001; 322:816) summarises recent serious concerns from the >>House of Commons Select Committee on Health about public health, especially >>our medical colleagues contribution. I looked up the original report on >>the internet via www.parliament.uk/commons/hsecom.htm >> >and hunted around for Health -Second Report, to discover it says quite a >>bit about Health Visiting (and School Health, and Health Promotion, the >>HDA, Evidence-Based Policy etc.). >> > >> >If anyone is contacting politicians, this powerful report may be most >>helpful, especially section 76, which includes the following: >> > >> " We would like to see a role for health visitors as the key public health >>resource for all community health care professionals. We are concerned >>that health visitors are not sufficiently empowered in terms of resources >>and capacity to carry out wider public health functions beyond their >>statutory duties. We also think that there is scope for greater >>integration and co-ordination between health visitors, school and community >>nurses. We recommend that the role fo the health visitor is reviewed and >>clarified. We would like to see it developed as a holistic, public health >>function " >> > >> >Hear, hear. >> > >> >Woody >> >UCL. >> > >> > I shall be doing all I can to encourage people to write to their MP >>about >> > the lack of health visiting in the title of this. As far as I can see we >> > will still have a health visitor member from each country so we will >>have a >> > voice but I agree whole heartedly that this is not enough if midwives >>can do >> > it we can too! I will also be hoping that the Welsh National Board will >>make >> > a comment about this. I will put my letter on site when it is finished >> > perhaps others can do the same although I don't think we should use the >>same >> > letter we may make our representations stronger by having a consensus to >>the >> > argument? >> > >> > nne >> > >> > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2001 Report Share Posted April 7, 2001 Hi Jean Good that you have written - I have also and I also plan to write to Baroness Cumberlege and Virginia Bottomley. Virginia ia not my MP but is in the next door constituency and I thought I would remind her of the time when she was health minister and claimed Hvs were the best thing since sliced bread. Re the children's task force - you are right there are no Hvs on it although Daly says there are some managers. I am not sure of its remit but if it is about children then it needs to include education and social services as well as the local authoity. Does anyone have its terms of reference. Margaret Re: Re: NMC > >>Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:53:04 BST > >> > >> I would also like to know which professional bodies and unions are > >>supporting or questioning this move in change of name and which > >>organisations would have the most clout in terms of being listened to by > >>government bodies? If the name emphasises nursing is the RCN seen as more > >>powerful in defending and assisting practitioners or would the CPHVA with > >>health visitor is the title have the same clout. DO you get my gist? I > >>have not read fully the opinions of any unions or professional groups in > >>helping us in this campaign. Jeanette > >> > Just sent letter to my MP asking his opinion and reqesting response on > >>NMC, sorry I was too late to add report. Await with anticipation his reply. > >> Jeanette > Dear nne, > >> > > >> >Today's BMJ (2001; 322:816) summarises recent serious concerns from the > >>House of Commons Select Committee on Health about public health, especially > >>our medical colleagues contribution. I looked up the original report on > >>the internet via www.parliament.uk/commons/hsecom.htm > >> >and hunted around for Health -Second Report, to discover it says quite a > >>bit about Health Visiting (and School Health, and Health Promotion, the > >>HDA, Evidence-Based Policy etc.). > >> > > >> >If anyone is contacting politicians, this powerful report may be most > >>helpful, especially section 76, which includes the following: > >> > > >> " We would like to see a role for health visitors as the key public health > >>resource for all community health care professionals. We are concerned > >>that health visitors are not sufficiently empowered in terms of resources > >>and capacity to carry out wider public health functions beyond their > >>statutory duties. We also think that there is scope for greater > >>integration and co-ordination between health visitors, school and community > >>nurses. We recommend that the role fo the health visitor is reviewed and > >>clarified. We would like to see it developed as a holistic, public health > >>function " > >> > > >> >Hear, hear. > >> > > >> >Woody > >> >UCL. > >> > > >> > I shall be doing all I can to encourage people to write to their MP > >>about > >> > the lack of health visiting in the title of this. As far as I can see we > >> > will still have a health visitor member from each country so we will > >>have a > >> > voice but I agree whole heartedly that this is not enough if midwives > >>can do > >> > it we can too! I will also be hoping that the Welsh National Board will > >>make > >> > a comment about this. I will put my letter on site when it is finished > >> > perhaps others can do the same although I don't think we should use the > >>same > >> > letter we may make our representations stronger by having a consensus to > >>the > >> > argument? > >> > > >> > nne > >> > > >> > > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 I'm pleased to think we are keeping up the battle to retain HV( or PHN) in the new Council title and think another important ally worth writing to would be ( Rabbi) Neuberger Chief Executive The Kings Fund 11-13, Cavendish Square London, W1G OAN She has always been an advocate of HVs and recognised the unique contribution we (and of course SNs) make to the PH agenda through our contact with the well population. Given the impending crisis of mental ill health and all the other current PH issues including obesity, domestic violence, child abuse, teenage pregnancies lung cancer in women etc etc etc. I'm sure we have a v strong case to argue the need to retain within the Councils title some thing which reflects those health care interventions we offer which are complementary to, but different from hands on nursing care. It could be argued that we have failed as HVs to prevent these problems to date, but surely one reason for this has been the shift towards a medical model since the NHS so called reforms in the 70s and also the cut backs in HV numbers. Now at last the govt has recognised the need to return to a PH and preventive focus and thus legitimised our role. Hence in my view the need to recognise our difference in the title, to ensure that PH focus-but should we perhaps consider using public health nursing instead? I never thought I'd 'hear' myself saying that(! ) and I'm sure many won't agree but I do think it is worth considering. I am rather rambling on here, trying to get my own thoughts in order and writing as I think---but I look forward to your comments Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 Dear Frances, I think child abuse is a very good example, at a time when Her Majesty's Government is spending hundreds of millions on Quality Protects. Neither those 150,000 people with conventional medical training nor the 500,000 with general nursing training have made the slightest dent in child abuse statistics for the last generation in the UK. School nurses, community learning disability and community mental health nurses for children do indeed have had a growing role in detecting individuals who have been abused, but there really seems to be just one professional group in the NHS which regularly intervenes in attempting to reduce abuse and neglect in the population: HVs. It takes special knowledge, skills, attitude and a coherent professional framework to undertake this unique function within the child protection / family support service, and almost everyone in Britain wants children to be protected to the best of our ability. If the necessary training by appropriate trainers working in an effective professional system is lost, the first losers (within a couple of years only)will be the most vulnerable kids in our society. Good luck, Woody. > I'm pleased to think we are keeping up the battle to retain HV( or PHN) in > the new Council title and think another important ally worth writing to > would be > ( Rabbi) Neuberger > Chief Executive > The Kings Fund > 11-13, Cavendish Square > London, W1G OAN > She has always been an advocate of HVs and recognised the unique > contribution we (and of course SNs) make to the PH agenda through our > contact with the well population. Given the impending crisis of mental ill > health and all the other current PH issues including obesity, domestic > violence, child abuse, teenage pregnancies lung cancer in women etc etc > etc. I'm sure we have a v strong case to argue the need to retain within > the Councils title some thing which reflects those health care > interventions we offer which are complementary to, but different from > hands on nursing care. It could be argued that we have failed as > HVs to prevent these problems to date, but surely one reason for this has > been the shift towards a medical model since the NHS so called reforms in > the 70s and also the cut backs in HV numbers. Now at last the govt has > recognised the need to return to a PH and preventive focus and thus > legitimised our role. Hence in my view the need to recognise our > difference in the title, to ensure that PH focus-but should we perhaps > consider using public health nursing instead? I never thought I'd 'hear' > myself saying that(! ) and I'm sure many won't agree but I do think it is > worth considering. I am rather rambling on here, trying to get my own > thoughts in order and writing as I think---but I look forward to your > comments Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 Perhaps we could share the letters being sent to the Journal as I am sure that not all of them will be printed. NMC > > > > Dear Neil Hamilton > > > > Re: News item 'Director in bid to defuse council name row' > > > > What a great pity and a lost opportunity for health visitors to see > today's > > news item in the Community Practitioner where the Director of the CPHVA > said > > that the, > > " new council's name was less important than the fact that the council was > to > > have a strong public health focus " > > Well how awful to be so out of touch with the membership. Every > practitioner > > I have spoken to thinks it is very important that we are in the document > in > > name as well as in deed. SENATE for Health Visiting and School Nursing has > a > > letter writing and lobbying campaign, called MAYDAY MAYDAY. Senate > members > > have held meetings up and down the country about this dire situation. The > > news item is out of step with the reality on the ground. I wonder if this > > news item will give practitioners pause for thought about an organisation > > that is failing to fight for them on the really big issues, after this > item > > I am seriously reconsidering my union membership. It is astonishing to say > > that the absence of health visiting in the title doesn't matter. Of course > > it matters; as a member of the CPHVA I want the organisation to get in > there > > and get a bloody nose on my account that is what I pay them for not to say > > there there it will be alright in the end. Small wonder that a health > > visitor in practice commenting, this week, on not hearing about this issue > > called the organisation 'toothless'. Come on CPHVA wake up and as for the > > Journal how about covering the issues before hand and helping hard pressed > > practitioners to keep abreast of these crucial policy issues. Health > > visitors used to be led by their union and kept informed by their > > professional Journal in serious issues like this. Now it is all after the > > fact too late and 'what was that about'. Without the Mayday campaign many > > would indeed be hearing about this loss to the profession after the fact > > when it would be too late to do anything about it never mind comment. It > is > > very serious and I am deeply saddened that the CPHVA and the Journal have > > failed to take up the banner in this cause. However, health visitors > > themselves will continue to try hard to move the issue forward on their > own, > > the ramifications of this approach may be a raft of resignations from the > > CPHVA. > > > > > > Yours sincerely > > > > Houston > > Research Associate > > Kings College London > > Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery > > 57 Waterloo Road, > > London > > SE1 8WA > > Tel 020 7848 3032 > > > > cc > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 Well done, . An excellent response - good news that DoH felt the need to give guidance. Cowley wrote: > , thank you for drawing attention to the DOH guide about health visiting > and the draft Order. It is encouraging that such aguide has been produced; > obviouslythe volume of letters from MPs etc. is such that it was necessary to > produce something a bit more sophisticated than responses from lord Hunt that > several MPs had produced. The Guide does help to interpret the draft Order, > but basically says nothing new. I attach a critique and would be interested in > comments. > > > " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > > > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the following > > message: > > > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the CPHVA, > > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to the > > continuing part of the register for the registration of health visitors, > > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that the > > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond 2004. > > > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of recent > > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong safeguards > > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the CPHVA > > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton and a > > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of health > > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are feeling. > > > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > > * protection of their professional title - it will be a criminal > > offence for anyone else to use that title. > > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only one > > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who are not > > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would suggest, > > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues outlined > > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It would > > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the hearing > > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open forum > > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > > http://www.msfcphva.org > > > > Harvey > > Assistant Information Officer > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > Warning: > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > Harvey MA > > Assistant Information Officer > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > Warning: > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for the use > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive this > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > **************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2001 Report Share Posted September 18, 2001 Absolutely Margaret, the debate must go on. Because without it how will new ideas or fresh approaches ever get properly aired and then hopefully developed once they have been constructively critiqued. Quoting Margaret Buttigieg <margaret@...>: > It would seem that SENNATE is becoming quite an important organisation > for > people to share information through and to voice opinions. But what we > are > encouraging and want and have benifitted from is the open honest debate > that > has taken place and which has allowed a range of opinions to be aired > and > shared. > > It therefore seems unfortunate to me that the communication from the > CPHVA > appears - and this is my interpretation - to be telling us not to rock > the > boat and not to challenge the way the legislation is written and > promoted. > I went into the website as suggested and do not feel any more reassured > than > I have previously. > > It still feels to me despite all that is being said that the > legislation > remains open to interpretation and that what happens now and in the > future > will be dependent on who is representing health visiting. Here we need > to > ask the question who nominates them. > > I am also concerned that we keep the SENNATE as a place where we can > debate > issues as I am truely begining to feel it is the only place health > visitors > can do so. No longer does it feel the professional organisation that > represents us is a place where we can have an open honest debate. > > One of the principles of health visiting is to influence policies that > effect health. Surely this is what SENNATe and others are doing by > asking > for clarification on the legislation and looking for health visiting to > be > retained in the title of the new statutory body. Influencing policy > effecting health is a health visiting skill many HVs practice at a > high > level and look what has been achieved. We should be congratulating > ourselves and pushing forward not towing the party line when we have not > had > any real opportunity to debate it and are being prevented from doing so > by > the refusal to hold a Special General meeting. I cannot see an open > forum > where centres have to nominate a representative and where only that > representative will get entry as an open forum surely it is a > restricted > one. > > Lets continue to freely debate on the SENNATE and if others want to put > an > opinion over then they need to expect to have it challenged. Health > visitors have spent many years being controlled by managers - the info > on > the SENNATE shows that is begining to change and I am seeing it in my > work - > lets keep it going - that is what helath visitng is about. > > Lets have some more opinions on this issues. > > Margaret > > > Re: NMC > > > > Well; in one evening different messages passed on from both the RCN > and > the > > CPHVA: Senate is obviously regarded as reaching a large readership! > > > > We do welcome information from a wide range of sources, particularly > in > the > > spirit of sharing news and holding open discussion and debate; > you > are a > > very useful resource and have often contributed some excellent > information > in > > this regard. > > > > Also, we know that many members take Senate debates and discussions > to > clinic > > bases and talk about issues; sometimes coming back with queries or > comments > > that have come from a wide range of views that help to inform the > debate. > > > > However, I do have some concerns about Senate members posting opinions > on > > behalf of someone who is not, themselves, part of the discussion. > What do > > other members think? > > > > Is this message intended to be an invitation to openly debate the > official > > position of the CPHVA on Senate? I have tended to discourage that, on > the > > grounds that if CPHVA members want to change that position, they > should > take > > that up with the organisation concerned. Courtesy of the Nursing > Press > and the > > grapevine, we know that is happening. > > > > However, I would like to remind all contributers that they are free > to > > respectfully (that is important) agree or disagree with the point of > view > taken > > by any other contributer. > > > > I would really like to add a rider to the end of this forwarded > message so > that > > it reads > > > > " Jackie Carnell thinks . . . . It would be unfortunate if > health > visitors > > were perceived to be delaying the hearing of the Order and, > therefore, > putting > > its future in jeopardy. . . . what do others think? " > > > > > > best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > > > > > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the > following > > > message: > > > > > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > > > > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the > CPHVA, > > > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA > has > > > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to > the > > > continuing part of the register for the registration of health > visitors, > > > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification > that > the > > > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council > beyond > 2004. > > > > > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of > recent > > > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong > safeguards > > > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On > the > CPHVA > > > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head > of > > > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister > Hutton > and a > > > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of > health > > > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are > feeling. > > > > > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > > > * the maintenance of a separate register for health > visitors. > > > * protection of their professional title - it will be a > criminal > > > offence for anyone else to use that title. > > > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses > and > > > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting > only > one > > > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who > are > not > > > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would > suggest, > > > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > > > > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues > outlined > > > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition > and > > > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. > It > would > > > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying > the > hearing > > > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > > > > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open > forum > > > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > > > http://www.msfcphva.org > > > > > > Harvey > > > Assistant Information Officer > > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 > http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** ****** > > > ***** > > > > Warning: > > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for > the > use > > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which > is > > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of > this > > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or > its > > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you > receive > this > > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone > immediately. > > > > ********************************************************************** ****** > > > ***** > > > > > > Harvey MA > > > Assistant Information Officer > > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 > http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** ****** > > > ***** > > > > Warning: > > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for > the > use > > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which > is > > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of > this > > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or > its > > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you > receive > this > > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone > immediately. > > > > ********************************************************************** ****** > > > ***** > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2001 Report Share Posted September 20, 2001 Thank you for your support . You are so right - democratic organisations listen to everyone even the minority and as you say I do not think we are a minority. Not when people are really allowed to hear and understand. There is another point for me - I have been a health visitor for nearly 30 years and the one big thing the education and the job did for me was to show me that even if my thoughts and opinions were different and not main stream I had a right to share them because they were valuable and that was the way change was made and things happened. The principles of health visiting direct us to challenge the status quo and search for needs that have not been seen or identified. You cannot expect health visitors to behave in one way at work and then allow their professional organisation treat them differently and not have a voice. All my professional life I have challenged the status quo and always been prepared to stand up and be counted even when it felt pretty terrible - I am not going to change that behaviour now even if I am only a small minority. I have often started off that way and then the tide has turned. If you are a mover and shaker you learn to live with that but I can count on one hand the number of times I have been seen not to be right! From what happened yesterday in a meeting with MSF and the Director of the CPHVA it would seem that we are no longer allowed a democratic voice and the lid which I held for a long time with support from many others is off. At work we are encouraged to challenge bullying and intimidation - we cannot allow it to happen to colleagues and us from an organisation that is there to support us. Margaret Re: NMC > > > > > > > Well; in one evening different messages passed on from both the RCN and > > the > > > CPHVA: Senate is obviously regarded as reaching a large readership! > > > > > > We do welcome information from a wide range of sources, particularly in > > the > > > spirit of sharing news and holding open discussion and debate; you > > are a > > > very useful resource and have often contributed some excellent > information > > in > > > this regard. > > > > > > Also, we know that many members take Senate debates and discussions to > > clinic > > > bases and talk about issues; sometimes coming back with queries or > > comments > > > that have come from a wide range of views that help to inform the > debate. > > > > > > However, I do have some concerns about Senate members posting opinions > on > > > behalf of someone who is not, themselves, part of the discussion. What > do > > > other members think? > > > > > > Is this message intended to be an invitation to openly debate the > official > > > position of the CPHVA on Senate? I have tended to discourage that, on > the > > > grounds that if CPHVA members want to change that position, they should > > take > > > that up with the organisation concerned. Courtesy of the Nursing Press > > and the > > > grapevine, we know that is happening. > > > > > > However, I would like to remind all contributers that they are free to > > > respectfully (that is important) agree or disagree with the point of > view > > taken > > > by any other contributer. > > > > > > I would really like to add a rider to the end of this forwarded message > so > > that > > > it reads > > > > > > " Jackie Carnell thinks . . . . It would be unfortunate if health > > visitors > > > were perceived to be delaying the hearing of the Order and, therefore, > > putting > > > its future in jeopardy. . . . what do others think? " > > > > > > > > > best wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Harvey (Library) " wrote: > > > > > > > Jackie Carnell, Director of the CPHVA has asked me to post the > following > > > > message: > > > > > > > > Re. The Nursing and Midwifery Council > > > > > > > > In response to the report of Gloucestershire branch meeting of the > > CPHVA, > > > > Senate members will be interested to note the following. The CPHVA has > > > > sought and continues to seek clarity in the final legislation as to > the > > > > continuing part of the register for the registration of health > visitors, > > > > parity on the council with nurses and midwifes, and clarification that > > the > > > > legislation allows for the election of HV places on the council beyond > > 2004. > > > > > > > > The CPHVA has written to every member but, amidst the anxieties of > > recent > > > > weeks, many CPHVA members may still not be aware of the strong > > safeguards > > > > which health visiting will enjoy under the new regulatory body. On the > > CPHVA > > > > website homepage I have posted briefings from lind Mead, Head of > > > > Non-Medical Regulation at the DOH and the Health Minister Hutton > > and a > > > > letter from lind Mead. These clearly sets out the position of > health > > > > visiting on the NMC and should reduce some of the anxiety HVs are > > feeling. > > > > > > > > Amongst other things, the NMC provides for: > > > > * the maintenance of a separate register for health visitors. > > > > * protection of their professional title - it will be a > criminal > > > > offence for anyone else to use that title. > > > > * guaranteed equal representation on the council with nurses and > > > > midwives. Moreover where the NMC has to decide matters affecting only > > one > > > > profession, these cannot be decided against the wishes of those who > are > > not > > > > members of that profession. Health visiting members are, I would > > suggest, > > > > unlikely to vote to remove themselves. > > > > > > > > Apart from the urgent need for further clarity about the issues > outlined > > > > about the draft legislation, the new council in its composition and > > > > structure should serve to reinforce the protection of the public. It > > would > > > > be unfortunate if health visitors were perceived to be delaying the > > hearing > > > > of the Order and, therefore, putting its future in jeopardy. > > > > > > > > The briefing, letters and information about attendance at the open > forum > > > > called by the CPHVA Executive Committee are available at > > > > http://www.msfcphva.org > > > > > > > > Harvey > > > > Assistant Information Officer > > > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ***** > > > > > Warning: > > > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for > the > > use > > > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive > > this > > > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ***** > > > > > > > > Harvey MA > > > > Assistant Information Officer > > > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 http://www.msfcphva.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ***** > > > > > Warning: > > > > > Please note that this e-mail and/or its attachment(s) is only for > the > > use > > > > > of the addressee. It may contain confidential information which is > > > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this > > > > > communication you must not copy, distribute or disseminate it or its > > > > > attachments to anyone other than the addressee. Should you receive > > this > > > > > communication in error please contact us by telephone immediately. > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > ***** > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.