Nurses Must Conform by Order 2001

[Guest guest]

Sad about the demise of health visiting - but I too think we are merely

metamorphising into a public health creature. After all with the disaggregation

of Public Health Depts. next spring the govt. is now seeking instant staff to

fulfill the PCT level public health activity and what better than transmogrified

HVs and SNs?

Houston wrote:

> I have spent the day writing my disapproval here there and everywhere. I

> have emailed an article to the Nursing Times entitled Obituary for Health

> Visiting:the unanswered questions regarding the invisibility of health

> visiting in statute. I dont know if they will publish but I feel better for

> having got a few things off my chest. Strangely I dont feel too despondent I

> keep thinking maybe we are not meant to be where we are currently with the

> constant fight to be understood and supported. Perhaps there is a new

> regulatory home waiting for us in the Health Profession Council. It is like

> one of those Star Trek adventures our world is falling apart and we all get

> in the spaceship and Jen Luc Picard says in that Shakespearean voice what

> is it that you really need

> and we say to be understood in a new Public Health World and he turns to his

> second in command and says, 'Number One - Make it so' And we go off to a

> brave new world.

> OK so I have really lost it - but it is after all Sunday night!!

> June I would much rather speak to Luc Picard but if push came to shove

> I might speak to Humphrys if you really wanted me to.

> Best Wishes

>

> >From: Cowley <sarah@...>

> >Reply-

> >

> >Subject: Re: Nurses Must Conform by Order 2001

> >Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:56:16 +0000

> >

> >Thanks June: no I am certainly not saying we should just forget it

> >now. I was having five minutes of deep depression and gloom, because it

> >is so hard to see how we can maintain our occupational standards, let

> >alone develop and expand the profession, in the face of these new,

> >immense obstacles. Even though health visiting still exists, we have to

> >come to terms with working in a new, officially approved

> >'don't-speak-of-health-visiting' environment.

> >

> >Seeing some kind of future for the profession will certainly be easier

> >if as many MPs as possible can be persuaded to vote against the Order.

> >Another, more likely and extremely valuable thing would be to get even

> >more MPs signing the Early Day Motion, to place some kind of official

> >mark about the extent of disapproval about our profession being

> >disbanded. We might also ask MPs to put forward parliamentary questions

> >about things like HOW health visiting standards are to be maintained now

> >they are no longer mentioned in the statute and whether health visitors

> >are to be prevented from using their occupational title in future.

> >

> >So: tomorrow I will be on the phone to my MP, having written and faxed

> >him last week. Please will others do likewise?

> >

> >The House of Commons phone number is: 020 7219 3000; ask for your MP

> >by name. Use

> >www.faxyourmp.com to send a fax or find out details of who is your own

> >MP, or the MP for where you work.

> >

> > * ask MPs to vote against the Order

> > * ask MPs to sign Early Day Motion number 100

> >

> >At the end of day, we have to be realistic about the fact that the Order

> >has been laid, and it is most unlikely that we can get it defeated.

> >Given the amount of controversy (and remembering that secondary

> >legislation is supposed to be used for things that are

> >non-controversial) it is even probable that the government will whip

> >their MPs, so that they are unable to vote against it; and the

> >government do have a huge majority. The Lords might be a possibility;

> >they defeated the government and removed the clause abolishing Community

> >Health Councils earlier in the year, but that was primary legislation

> >and it was just before the election was called, so there was a very

> >tight timetable which helped. And the government are just putting

> >through legislation about that too.

> >

> >Also, amongst the gloom and grief there are some positive things around

> >and (we think) we do have a transitional period during which a health

> >visiting register will continue to exist. We may be able to get the new

> >standards agreed and approved: if we can, we will want the government

> >to agree secondary legislation about that. So, we carry on marking our

> >disapproval of being 'abolished' from the regulatory statute, but ensure

> >that we preserve what we still have so that we can rebuild. And yes, I

> >will speak on radio if invited.

> >

> >Best wishes

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >junet579@... wrote:

> >

> > > Sorry , but I am confused. Are you saying that it is no longer

> > > worth anyone writing/faxing MPs to ask them to vote against the Order?

> > > Listening to Humphreys on the Today programme yesterday it also

> > > occured to me that since having a young baby he has mentioned HVs in a

> > > favourable light several times. I was therefore wondering if it is too

> > > late to ring or fax a 'Press Release' from SENATE to Today's news team

> > > about the issue and saying we hope MPS will vote against the Order? If

> > > not too late, would you or or anyone else from SENATE would be

> > > prepared to speak on Today if invited? Most MPs listen to Today and it

> > > might embarrass the Government at least? Also even if the Order goes

> > > through we should try to ensure it is with a small a majority as

> > > possible.

> > > June T

> > >

[Guest guest]

Well, the NMC: Nurses Must Conform Order 2001 was laid before the

House on Thursday; it is available for anyone feeling that they need to

something to be depressed about on:

http://www.doh.gov.uk/nursingandmidwiferyorder/nmcorder.pdf

There is an accompanying report of the consultation, which makes equally

depressing reading, combining as it does the usual mixture of conceptual

confusion, patronising comment, complete lack of recognition of health

visiting and confirmation of our fears that health visiting is to be removed

and replaced by a new set of bodies with a long and confusing title.

However, our campaign has certainly been heard; what we did not achieve

(given the lack of time, we could not) was convincing other powerful organisations

of why it is important. Key paragraphs are:

Responses to Statutory Consultation

7. There were over 2300 responses of which around 980 were from health

visitors about the registration and representation of their profession,

540

were from midwives on the composition of the Council, and 411 from

individual practitioners concerned about the publication of their home

addresses. Many other individuals also took the opportunity to write

directly

to Ministers. Of the remaining responses, 144 came from NHS Trusts

and

Health Authorities (although many of these were from practitioners

expressing views on those matters described above), 44 from professional,

regulatory and representative bodies, 42 from the higher education

sector,

and 18 from consumer and voluntary groups.

Health Visitors

8. Many practitioners were concerned that the omission of ‘Health Visiting’

from the title of the Council failed to recognise the important contribution

of

health visitors to public health and jeopardised the long term future

of the

profession. The Council would therefore fail to provide adequate public

protection in the broad and developing area of community based public

health

practice. They pressed for the inclusion of their title in the legislation,

the new

Council and the register, and for a statutory health visiting committee

9. These views were supported by the Royal College of General Practitioners

and one of the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

Other Boards referred to the 1997 JMC Consultation in which health

visitors

were widely perceived as specialist nurses. The Royal College of Nursing

(RCN) reported their membership’s view was that health visiting was

part of

the family of nursing; separate registration would be confusing for

the public.

In addition, health visitors’ representation as proposed was disproportionate

to the interests of specialist nursing practice. The Royal College

of Midwives

(RCM) was not convinced that singling out one group of community nurses

for separate registration would enhance public protection and wished

to see

no further changes to the title and remit of the NMC.

Health Visitors

45. Health Visitors will have parity of representation with nurses

and midwives

on the new Council, and legislation will provide for the separate registration

of

public and community health specialists, rather than specifying “health

visitors”. This will both safeguard their present status and enable

the Council

to reflect the developing role of specialist practitioners within this

and other

fields. The Council will not be required to set up a health visiting

committee,

although it will be free to do so. It will in any event be required

to have

regard to the interests of the profession and to consult its representatives

on

matters affecting them.

So, health visiting is still a profession, but it cannot mention

its name. The health visiting register is to be removed and replaced

by one that is very long, has no attached existing qualification and therefore

no mechanism for protecting standards for the public. I would be

pleased if the idea was to provide a new 'umbrella category,' like nursing

but different, which also has different parts. This may be a possible

glimmer, that we may have parts of the register under this category that

could include health visiting. It is difficult though, as the Nurses

Must Conform can only set up nursing and midwifery registers, so presumably

the new register is a nursing or a midwifery register. That takes

us back to the same confusion that has existed ever since the draft came

out in April. The health professions Council may be more a suitable

place for health visiting, given that the proposed public health register

is heading in that direction.

It feels like we have been shouting all summer, like the campaigners

who kept shouting

"Don't blow up the Buddhas!" But they still went ahead and did

it.

And just as the Taliban said "oh, they are only bits of old rock"

so there are those here who are saying "oh it is only a name"

Buddhism still exists, of course, just as health visiting still exists.

In the grand scheme of things, I am not suggesting that health visiting

is as important as Buddhism, but it is still important. And those

who think destroying things that are important is OK should just look at

what is happening to the Taliban now.

Apparently the Order will be debated by both Houses, but it cannot be

amended; it can only be approved or rejected. It would still be useful

to get MPs to sign the Early Day Motion until the Order goes through (which

it inevitably will now, given the huge government majority) and to ask

some specific questions about what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure

the standards and knowledge base of health visiting are not lost. Best

wishes

[Guest guest]

Sorry , but I am confused. Are you saying that it is no longer worth anyone writing/faxing MPs to ask them to vote against the Order? Listening to Humphreys on the Today programme yesterday it also occured to me that since having a young baby he has mentioned HVs in a favourable light several times. I was therefore wondering if it is too late to ring or fax a 'Press Release' from SENATE to Today's news team about the issue and saying we hope MPS will vote against the Order? If not too late, would you or or anyone else from SENATE would be prepared to speak on Today if invited? Most MPs listen to Today and it might embarrass the Government at least? Also even if the Order goes through we should try to ensure it is with a small a majority as possible.

June T

[Guest guest]

Thanks June: no I am certainly not saying we should just forget it

now. I was having five minutes of deep depression and gloom, because

it is so hard to see how we can maintain our occupational standards, let

alone develop and expand the profession, in the face of these new, immense

obstacles. Even though health visiting still exists, we have to come to

terms with working in a new, officially approved 'don't-speak-of-health-visiting'

environment.

Seeing some kind of future for the profession will certainly be easier

if as many MPs as possible can be persuaded to vote against the Order.

Another, more likely and extremely valuable thing would be to get even

more MPs signing the Early Day Motion, to place some kind of official mark

about the extent of disapproval about our profession being disbanded.

We might also ask MPs to put forward parliamentary questions about things

like HOW health visiting standards are to be maintained now they are no

longer mentioned in the statute and whether health visitors are to be prevented

from using their occupational title in future.

So: tomorrow I will be on the phone to my MP, having written and

faxed him last week. Please will others do likewise?

The House of Commons phone number is: 020 7219 3000; ask

for your MP by name. Use

www.faxyourmp.com to send a fax or find out details of who is your

own MP, or the MP for where you work.

ask MPs to vote against the Order

ask MPs to sign Early Day Motion number 100

At the end of day, we have to be realistic about the fact that the Order

has been laid, and it is most unlikely that we can get it defeated.

Given the amount of controversy (and remembering that secondary legislation

is supposed to be used for things that are non-controversial) it is even

probable that the government will whip their MPs, so that they are unable

to vote against it; and the government do have a huge majority.

The Lords might be a possibility; they defeated the government and removed

the clause abolishing Community Health Councils earlier in the year, but

that was primary legislation and it was just before the election was called,

so there was a very tight timetable which helped. And the government

are just putting through legislation about that too.

Also, amongst the gloom and grief there are some positive things around

and (we think) we do have a transitional period during which a health visiting

register will continue to exist. We may be able to get the new standards

agreed and approved: if we can, we will want the government to agree

secondary legislation about that. So, we carry on marking our disapproval

of being 'abolished' from the regulatory statute, but ensure that we preserve

what we still have so that we can rebuild. And yes, I will speak

on radio if invited.

Best wishes

junet579@... wrote:

Sorry

, but I am confused. Are you saying that it is no longer worth anyone

writing/faxing MPs to ask them to vote against the Order? Listening to

Humphreys on the Today programme yesterday it also occured to me that

since having a young baby he has mentioned HVs in a favourable light several

times. I was therefore wondering if it is too late to ring or fax a 'Press

Release' from SENATE to Today's news team about the issue and saying we

hope MPS will vote against the Order? If not too late, would you

or or anyone else from SENATE would be prepared to speak on Today

if invited? Most MPs listen to Today and it might embarrass the Government

at least? Also even if the Order goes through we should try to ensure it

is with a small a majority as possible.

June T

[Guest guest]

I have spent the day writing my disapproval here there and everywhere. I

have emailed an article to the Nursing Times entitled Obituary for Health

Visiting:the unanswered questions regarding the invisibility of health

visiting in statute. I dont know if they will publish but I feel better for

having got a few things off my chest. Strangely I dont feel too despondent I

keep thinking maybe we are not meant to be where we are currently with the

constant fight to be understood and supported. Perhaps there is a new

regulatory home waiting for us in the Health Profession Council. It is like

one of those Star Trek adventures our world is falling apart and we all get

in the spaceship and Jen Luc Picard says in that Shakespearean voice what

is it that you really need

and we say to be understood in a new Public Health World and he turns to his

second in command and says, 'Number One - Make it so' And we go off to a

brave new world.

OK so I have really lost it - but it is after all Sunday night!!

June I would much rather speak to Luc Picard but if push came to shove

I might speak to Humphrys if you really wanted me to.

Best Wishes

>From: Cowley <sarah@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: Nurses Must Conform by Order 2001

>Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:56:16 +0000

>

>Thanks June: no I am certainly not saying we should just forget it

>now. I was having five minutes of deep depression and gloom, because it

>is so hard to see how we can maintain our occupational standards, let

>alone develop and expand the profession, in the face of these new,

>immense obstacles. Even though health visiting still exists, we have to

>come to terms with working in a new, officially approved

>'don't-speak-of-health-visiting' environment.

>

>Seeing some kind of future for the profession will certainly be easier

>if as many MPs as possible can be persuaded to vote against the Order.

>Another, more likely and extremely valuable thing would be to get even

>more MPs signing the Early Day Motion, to place some kind of official

>mark about the extent of disapproval about our profession being

>disbanded. We might also ask MPs to put forward parliamentary questions

>about things like HOW health visiting standards are to be maintained now

>they are no longer mentioned in the statute and whether health visitors

>are to be prevented from using their occupational title in future.

>

>So: tomorrow I will be on the phone to my MP, having written and faxed

>him last week. Please will others do likewise?

>

>The House of Commons phone number is: 020 7219 3000; ask for your MP

>by name. Use

>www.faxyourmp.com to send a fax or find out details of who is your own

>MP, or the MP for where you work.

>

> * ask MPs to vote against the Order

> * ask MPs to sign Early Day Motion number 100

>

>At the end of day, we have to be realistic about the fact that the Order

>has been laid, and it is most unlikely that we can get it defeated.

>Given the amount of controversy (and remembering that secondary

>legislation is supposed to be used for things that are

>non-controversial) it is even probable that the government will whip

>their MPs, so that they are unable to vote against it; and the

>government do have a huge majority. The Lords might be a possibility;

>they defeated the government and removed the clause abolishing Community

>Health Councils earlier in the year, but that was primary legislation

>and it was just before the election was called, so there was a very

>tight timetable which helped. And the government are just putting

>through legislation about that too.

>

>Also, amongst the gloom and grief there are some positive things around

>and (we think) we do have a transitional period during which a health

>visiting register will continue to exist. We may be able to get the new

>standards agreed and approved: if we can, we will want the government

>to agree secondary legislation about that. So, we carry on marking our

>disapproval of being 'abolished' from the regulatory statute, but ensure

>that we preserve what we still have so that we can rebuild. And yes, I

>will speak on radio if invited.

>

>Best wishes

>

>

>

>

>junet579@... wrote:

>

> > Sorry , but I am confused. Are you saying that it is no longer

> > worth anyone writing/faxing MPs to ask them to vote against the Order?

> > Listening to Humphreys on the Today programme yesterday it also

> > occured to me that since having a young baby he has mentioned HVs in a

> > favourable light several times. I was therefore wondering if it is too

> > late to ring or fax a 'Press Release' from SENATE to Today's news team

> > about the issue and saying we hope MPS will vote against the Order? If

> > not too late, would you or or anyone else from SENATE would be

> > prepared to speak on Today if invited? Most MPs listen to Today and it

> > might embarrass the Government at least? Also even if the Order goes

> > through we should try to ensure it is with a small a majority as

> > possible.

> > June T

> >

[Guest guest]

and others, I think we

need to re-read this paragraph from the briefing paper very carefully and

not shoot ourselves in the foot by totally rubbishing something that we

are very probably going to be forced to work with (complete with chain

and manacles and a torture chamber in the basement for nurses who don’t

conform. . . . . !), without finding out

more about how it might be able to operate.

Para. 45 states:

‘Health Visitors will have parity of representation with nurses and midwives

on the new Council, and legislation will provide for the separate registration

of public and community health specialists, rather than specifying "health

visitors". ‘

This is obviously talking of

a transitional period, but we need to not lose the potential opportunities

there. It goes on:

45: ‘This will

both safeguard their present status and enable the Council to reflect the

developing role of specialist practitioners within this and other fields.

The Council will not be required to set up a health visiting committee,

although it will be free to do so. It will in any event be required to

have regard to the interests of the profession and to consult its representatives

onmatters affecting them’

So, health visiting is still

a profession in the briefing paper, even if it is one that is about to

be written off! Perhaps we need to ask for an optional committee,

and get it established as so invaluable that we can make it custom and

practice to put all matters about health visitingthrough it. It might

even get called 'Health visiting committee'!

In view of this background,

I think we need some very specific responses from parliamentary questions

and not too much of scatter gun approach. Like, will the government

undertake to not change the name of a health visiting committee if one

is established? We should also bear in mind that there are

probably no answers to some of your detailed questions yet, because the

proposed register is such a new idea that no one will have worked out the

answers.

I am not sure that I want

ministers working out the details of professional competence, either, because

they obviously have no idea about how regulation operates.

Actually, the first people to send ’s list of questions to might be

the CPHVA: it was their big idea, so they might have done some thinking

about how the new register will work. Actually, I don’t suppose they

have any answers either. I just have a horrible feeling they will

want everything tied to the flawed community health care nursing framework,

which the rest of us are trying to move away from because of the research

that shows that it has done so much harm to health visiting standards.

It would be good to check with them and see if they are planning to inflict

more intended or unintended damage on health visiting.

I was coming at the idea

of specific questions from a different perspective from yours .

I want to think about and find out about what might make these new proposals

acceptable and workable for health visiting. My list is below:

will others add to this?

It could work if the new register

has provision for different parts (like nursing has mental health, adult

etc), of which one is health visiting.

I am perfectly happy for e.g.

school and occupational health workers to be registered alongside health

visitors, as long as they don't want us all to start calling ourselves

nurses. In fact I'm delighted and think it is really great news as

long as it is

‘as well as’ and not ‘instead of’. I

don’t want to ask or state anything that might imply I am rejecting and

inhibiting an opportunity for others to develop, but don't think others

should be throwing out health visiting so they can reach up by standing

on our collected bodies!

It could work if entry to the

new register is allowed because of the standards achieved by applicants

at the point of registration, not by earlier/alternative qualifications

(i.e. if it is not restricted to those who have previously qualified as

nurses and midwives).

Public health is an essentially

multi-disciplinary endeavour, so any register with ‘public health’ in the

title should be open at the start of the training to anyone who can benefit

from the education. It should not be limited by old-fashioned restrictive

practices and past prejudices that imply only nurses and midwives can learn

to specialise in community and public health. Are there any plans

for collaborating with colleagues planning the new specialist public health

register? How will the specialist in public health and community

specialist in public health differ?

It could work if the health

visiting knowledge base can be reflected and developed within the occupational

standards required for registration, so 140 years of professional experience

and recent health visiting research is not lost!

I feel tremendously uncomfortable

about the restricted focus of current dialogues. Health visiting

seems to be constantly moved from one straight jacket to another:

in the 1980s, we were told to concentrate on child development and have

strict protocols for it, in the 1990s we were told that child protection,

targeted health promotion clinics and vulnerable families were what we

were for (and what about the elderly; move away from children now the elderly

population needs us!). Now we are being told public health nursing,

health inequalities, four named diseases and a population focus are the

only things that count. But what about family support and child protection

and child development and therapeutic prevention and the principles of

health visiting? Are these all unimportant now? Or only

to be considered only through one restricted, nursing/public health lens?

I want my broad profession

back please: how will the new register help or hinder in this?

Best wishes

[Guest guest]

Oh! for the calm and measured response thank you for that - I dont do calm

and measured very well!

>From: Cowley <sarah@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: Re: Nurses Must Conform by Order 2001

>Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 19:54:35 +0000

>

> and others, I think we need to re-read this paragraph from the

>briefing

>paper very carefully and not shoot ourselves in the foot by totally

>rubbishing

>something that we are very probably going to be forced to work with

>(complete

>with chain and manacles and a torture chamber in the basement for nurses

>who

>donít conform. . . . . !), without finding out more about how it might

>be

>able to operate.

>

>

> Para. 45 states: ëHealth Visitors will have parity of representation

> with nurses and midwives on the new Council, and legislation will

> provide for the separate registration of public and community health

> specialists, rather than specifying " health visitors " . ë

>

>This is obviously talking of a transitional period, but we need to not lose

>the

>potential opportunities there. It goes on:

>

>

> 45: ëThis will both safeguard their present status and enable the

>Council

> to reflect the developing role of specialist practitioners within

>this and

> other fields. The Council will not be required to set up a health

>visiting

> committee, although it will be free to do so. It will in any event be

> required to have regard to the interests of the profession and to

>consult

> its representatives onmatters affecting themí

>

>So, health visiting is still a profession in the briefing paper, even if it

>is

>one that is about to be written off! Perhaps we need to ask for an

>optional

>committee, and get it established as so invaluable that we can make it

>custom

>and practice to put all matters about health visitingthrough it. It might

>even

>get called 'Health visiting committee'!

>

>In view of this background, I think we need some very specific responses

>from

>parliamentary questions and not too much of scatter gun approach. Like,

>will

>the government undertake to not change the name of a health visiting

>committee

>if one is established? We should also bear in mind that there are

>probably no

>answers to some of your detailed questions yet, because the proposed

>register

>is such a new idea that no one will have worked out the answers.

>

>I am not sure that I want ministers working out the details of professional

>competence, either, because they obviously have no idea about how

>regulation

>operates. Actually, the first people to send ís list of questions to

>might

>be the CPHVA: it was their big idea, so they might have done some thinking

>about how the new register will work. Actually, I donít suppose they have

>any

>answers either. I just have a horrible feeling they will want everything

>tied

>to the flawed community health care nursing framework, which the rest of us

>are

>trying to move away from because of the research that shows that it has

>done so

>much harm to health visiting standards. It would be good to check with them

>and

>see if they are planning to inflict more intended or unintended damage on

>health visiting.

>

>I was coming at the idea of specific questions from a different perspective

>from yours . I want to think about and find out about what might make

>these new proposals acceptable and workable for health visiting. My list

>is

>below: will others add to this?

>

> 1. It could work if the new register has provision for different parts

>(like

> nursing has mental health, adult etc), of which one is health

>visiting.

>

>I am perfectly happy for e.g. school and occupational health workers to be

>registered alongside health visitors, as long as they don't want us all to

>start calling ourselves nurses. In fact I'm delighted and think it is

>really

>great news as long as it is ëas well así and not ëinstead ofí. I donít

>want to

>ask or state anything that might imply I am rejecting and inhibiting an

>opportunity for others to develop, but don't think others should be

>throwing

>out health visiting so they can reach up by standing on our collected

>bodies!

>

>

> 1. It could work if entry to the new register is allowed because of the

> standards achieved by applicants at the point of registration, not by

> earlier/alternative qualifications (i.e. if it is not restricted to

>those

> who have previously qualified as nurses and midwives).

>

>Public health is an essentially multi-disciplinary endeavour, so any

>register

>with ëpublic healthí in the title should be open at the start of the

>training

>to anyone who can benefit from the education. It should not be limited by

>old-fashioned restrictive practices and past prejudices that imply only

>nurses

>and midwives can learn to specialise in community and public health. Are

>there

>any plans for collaborating with colleagues planning the new specialist

>public

>health register? How will the specialist in public health and community

>specialist in public health differ?

>

>

> 1. It could work if the health visiting knowledge base can be reflected

>and

> developed within the occupational standards required for

>registration, so

> 140 years of professional experience and recent health visiting

>research

> is not lost!

>

>

>I feel tremendously uncomfortable about the restricted focus of current

>dialogues. Health visiting seems to be constantly moved from one straight

>jacket to another: in the 1980s, we were told to concentrate on child

>development and have strict protocols for it, in the 1990s we were told

>that

>child protection, targeted health promotion clinics and vulnerable families

>were what we were for (and what about the elderly; move away from children

>now

>the elderly population needs us!). Now we are being told public health

>nursing, health inequalities, four named diseases and a population focus

>are

>the only things that count. But what about family support and child

>protection

>and child development and therapeutic prevention and the principles of

>health

>visiting? Are these all unimportant now? Or only to be considered only

>through one restricted, nursing/public health lens?

>

>I want my broad profession back please: how will the new register help or

>hinder in this?

>

>Best wishes

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Neither do I! June