Guest guest Posted September 20, 2001 Report Share Posted September 20, 2001 Just returned from hols and read the `shut up and don`t rock the boat` debate. Felt that the CPHVA were adopting `Matron knows best` senario. I will admit to finding the legislative procedures very complicated and realise that hvs on the ground need leadership advice as we can`t be experts on everything. However, I feel that we need to express our opinions and concerns freely; afterall part of hv education is to challenge and influence and this is just what we are doing. The troops in the field have an opinion too. Jeanette > 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 > > <a Target='_new' Href='http://www.talk21.com/redirect.html?http://www.msfcphva.org'>http://www.ms\ fcphva.org</a> > > > > Harvey > > Assistant Information Officer > > Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association > > 40 Bermondsey St, London, SE1 3UD > > Tel. 0207 939 7064 Fax. 0207 939 7034 <a Target='_new' Href='http://www.talk21.com/redirect.html?http://www.msfcphva.org/'>http://www.m\ sfcphva.org/</a> > > > > >**************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > 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 <a Target='_new' Href='http://www.talk21.com/redirect.html?http://www.msfcphva.org/'>http://www.m\ sfcphva.org/</a> > > > > >**************************************************************************** > > ***** > > > 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 Hello . Yes, surely free speech is the essence of democracy. And if I had a pound for everyone I had met who had been told they were 'in a minority' at the CPHVA, I would be able to retire tomorrow! The so-called 'majority' are pretty thin on the ground and very hard to find. Crome wrote: > Margaret, > > I totally agree with what you have said, and my interpretation was the same > as yours - don't rock the boat. I recently went to a local CPHVA meeting and > challenged Jackie on this subject and was left with exactly that feeling. I > am grateful for the opportunity to openly debate such an important issue on > SENATE, and agree that it is unfortunate that this openess of debate appears > not to be taking place within our professional organisation. I have belonged > to the CPHVA throughout my professional life as a health visitor, but am > really questioning the value of maintaining my membership. I was told at the > meeting that my views were minority ones. Firstly I question this, and even > if they are, should minorities not be listened to in a democratic > organisation? I support your view that the debate and current activities > need to continue on SENATE so that all views are considered > > > 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 November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Visit, http://www.msfcphva.org/index1.html but don't get too depressed as the vote had not been taken yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2001 Report Share Posted December 4, 2001 Many thanks to your colleague and the contact Charlene. The opposition di d a very good job of presenting our case in the Standing Committee debate. Did you manage to access the web page? It is http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmstand/cmdeleg.ht\ m The 13th December is when the Order goes to the House of Lords. Best wishes Charlene Lobo wrote: > This e-mail was sent to a HV colleague from Tim Clement-, Lib. Dem. > health spokesperson. She has asked me to post it on SENATE > > " ...thanks for sending me the e-mails about the new Nursing and Midwifery > Order - much appreciated. I'm very pro the arguments of the 'rebels', > particularly the fact that there is no mention of health visitors in the > title of the order. The new order is coming up on the 13th. please tell > them to get in touch on > tim.clement-jones@... if they want to tell me more. " > > sounds like an invitation that cannot be refused! > Charlene > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2001 Report Share Posted December 5, 2001 Thanks for re-posting this I at last got around to reading it 3 cheers for the grass roots - lots of mentions!!! Well done all! >From: Cowley <sarah@...> >Reply- > >Subject: Re: RE: NMC >Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 22:56:04 +0000 > >Many thanks to your colleague and the contact Charlene. The opposition di >d >a very good job of presenting our case in the Standing Committee debate. >Did you manage to access the web page? It is > >http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmstand/cmdeleg.h\ tm > >The 13th December is when the Order goes to the House of Lords. Best >wishes > > >Charlene Lobo wrote: > > > This e-mail was sent to a HV colleague from Tim Clement-, Lib. Dem. > > health spokesperson. She has asked me to post it on SENATE > > > > " ...thanks for sending me the e-mails about the new Nursing and >Midwifery > > Order - much appreciated. I'm very pro the arguments of the 'rebels', > > particularly the fact that there is no mention of health visitors in the > > title of the order. The new order is coming up on the 13th. please tell > > them to get in touch on > > tim.clement-jones@... if they want to tell me more. " > > > > sounds like an invitation that cannot be refused! > > Charlene > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Share Posted May 20, 2002 Dear Pat and Lorraine. If course length and outcome have been demonstrated to be effective (ie evidence-based?) then the notion of everyone doing it differently is absurd to say the least. It is simply unacceptable that non-evidence based politics is being used to justify the re-invention of wheels all over the place. If we only took one issue, eg the NSF for MH in England (my big banana) and concentrated on delivering similitude and highest common factors across the UK, would not the world be a better place? Instead of which political ambition and absurd historical attitudes and clannishness drag everyone down to the base level..this no amount of money will solve, but what you are advocating would. As if something crucial happens when you cross the border..some fundamental changes in neurochemistry or biological process perhaps? Please forgive my ignorance, but when you mention statute Lorraine...do you mean English/UK/Welsh? As someone working in the vol sector, I know how devolution has complicated our lives. if there are issues relating to MH/PH/community, which is the main body that lobbies for HVisiting across the UK and how does it split its lobbying to each of the four nations now? As I say, please bear with me, as I try to understand this. Chris. www.primhe.org Re: NMC Hi , I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting, at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers from other community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from 45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but because the statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle. Lorraine On 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote: Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early retirement after the wedding! I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially 'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for nurses or midwives in their training rules). Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed before the new health visiting standards are implemented. Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes Houston wrote: >Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday >campaign the postman comes!!!! >I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the >past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > > >Dear Asbridge > > >Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct > >I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health >visiting and neither does the 'News'. >Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School >Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. >Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a >marvellous bit of trickery! > >I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at >conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting >would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health >visiting. > >It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over >what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It >seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without intention >to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. > >Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is >fake'. > >Yours sincerely > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Share Posted May 20, 2002 the Statute that we are referring to is the one governing the regulation of health visitors. There are two bits relevant to the discussion: one is the statutory health visitor training rules, that restrict the entry gate to nurses and midwives only and specify a minimum period of training of 32 weeks. This rule was changed in 2000, after there had been a range of studies showing how absurd that length was (the courses had been implemented before the law was in place), so there is little hope that evidence will make a difference. The second bit relates to the way the statutory regulatory body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council that came into force in April, interprets these rules and the standards to be achieved in those 32 weeks (16 weeks theory and 16 weeks practice). In principle, as it is a registerable qualification, everyone who completes the course is supposed to be equally competent and qualified as 'fit to practice' as a health visitor, but there are markedly different emphases across the four parts of the UK. In principle, too, because the length is a 'minimum' we have the flexibility to run longer courses, but this is very dependent on local approval. It does seem as though the flexibility is in all the wrong places. There are several universities that are desperate to pilot a multi-disciplinary entry and different form/length of training to improve the family health and/or public health input and recruitment, but that is an issue that is absolutely not to be discussed in polite circles!! Hope that helps. Best wishes Manning wrote: >Dear Pat and Lorraine. > >If course length and outcome have been demonstrated to be effective (ie >evidence-based?) >then the notion of everyone doing it differently is absurd to say the least. >It is simply >unacceptable that non-evidence based politics is being used to justify the >re-invention of >wheels all over the place. > >If we only took one issue, eg the NSF for MH in England (my big banana) and >concentrated on >delivering similitude and highest common factors across the UK, would not >the world be a better place? >Instead of which political ambition and absurd historical attitudes and >clannishness drag >everyone down to the base level..this no amount of money will solve, but >what you are advocating would. >As if something crucial happens when you cross the border..some fundamental >changes in neurochemistry >or biological process perhaps? > >Please forgive my ignorance, but when you mention statute Lorraine...do you >mean English/UK/Welsh? >As someone working in the vol sector, I know how devolution has complicated >our lives. if there are issues >relating to MH/PH/community, which is the main body that lobbies for >HVisiting across the UK >and how does it split its lobbying to each of the four nations now? > >As I say, please bear with me, as I try to understand this. > >Chris. >www.primhe.org > > > Re: NMC > > >Hi , >I totally agree with you regarding the standards for Health Visiting, >at the present time we are developing a new programme, lecturers from >other community practitioners want our programme to be reduced from >45weeks to 32. I am fighting this at the present time, but because >the statute states minimum of 32weeks I am fighting a losing battle. > >Lorraine > >On 16 May 2002 at 21:06, Cowley wrote: > >Thanks . My copy of NMC news arrived just as I was leaving for a >week's holiday for my son's wedding, so I deliberately lowered my blood >pressure by shutting it out of my mind and determined to look into early >retirement after the wedding! > >I also expected that Senate would be full of comments about it when I >returned, but not so. I wondered if that meant that we have all decided, >like Gill, to give up since our profession has been officially >'disappeared' Or if it meant that I was the only one to mind about the >continued loss of recognition. That, of course, is the story that was >sold to Ministers, which is why health visiting was written out of the >statute in the first place. I wonder what our 'representatives' are >doing about health visiting at the NMC? Anything about health visiting? >Or perhaps they are only permitted to speak about nursing and the >proposed new register for an occupation that doesn't exist. There was a >promise (recorded in the House of Lords) that, if health visitors wanted >to call that register the 'Health visiting register', they would be >permitted to do so. How will we get a say about that, I wonder? The same >way we did about the statute: by misrepresentation from our trade unions? > >I have to say, I don't care what other registers are set up as long as >the health visiting one continues. Indeed, if I had an absolute >assurance about that, and if health visiting had been named in the >Statute, I would have been enthusiastically supporting the addition of >another register for colleagues. It is the suggestion that we set up a >register for a non-existent occupation (specialist in community and >public health) INSTEAD of a health visiting register that worries me. We >need to have the new health visiting competencies brought out as >required standards urgently, along with an amended statutory instrument >that takes out the silly requirement for a 32 week course and >restrictive practice about entry requirements (which do not exist for >nurses or midwives in their training rules). > >Health visitor education is in a really bad way and so many Colleges are >desparately trying to work out what to do about programmes that need >revalidating: the current standards are demonstrably inappropriate and >we have the information about what is needed, but we need it now. We >cannot wait for a whole new registerable occupation to be developed >before the new health visiting standards are implemented. > >Time to go and calm myself down and get dinner, I think! best wishes > > > > Houston wrote: > >>Just when you think you are getting over the bereavement of the Mayday >>campaign the postman comes!!!! >>I was so angry - I could hardly write this letter of complaint. As in the >>past anyone please feel free to join in with the letter-writing!!!!!!!!!! >> >My 'angry from Hornchurch' is in the post!! > >> >> >>Dear Asbridge >> >> >>Re: NMC News, NMC Code of conduct >> >>I note with dismay that the code of conduct makes no mention of health >>visiting and neither does the 'News'. >>Amazingly it has come to pass as Senate for Health Visiting and School >>Nursing predicted - there is officially now no voice for health visiting. >>Not only that, it seems that it has also been rendered invisible. What a >>marvellous bit of trickery! >> >>I listened and was encouraged by your words on the public stage at >>conference on your personal duty of care to make sure that health visiting >>would have a voice, and you would make certain of that on behalf of health >>visiting. >> >>It is difficult to find the language to express how let down I feel over >>what I now perceive as your empty words. I am disappointed and angry. It >>seems, sadly, that you were just consoling from the podium without >> >intention > >>to act in support of the registrants who are health visitors. >> >>Perhaps Iris Murdoch was right when she said 'anything that consoles is >>fake'. >> >>Yours sincerely >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 nne, thanks for that Also I was worried when you mentioned Hong Kong a while back that you were jumping ship at a crucial moment. Glad to hear that you are still in the frame. Can you shed any light on this notion of the act having just been repealed, this is being seriously viewed from my midwifery colleagues and I feel quite in the dark over it. >From: " Cowpe M (SoCS) " <mcowpe@...> >Reply- > " (E-mail) " < > >CC: " Sheena (E-mail) " <Sheena.wright@...>, " > (E-mail) " <@...>, " Bronya. Webster (E-mail) " ><bronya.webster@...>, " Fiona (E-mail 2) " ><Fiona.wright@...>, " Livesey (E-mail) " ><hlivesey@...>, " IWHITE1 (E-mail) " <IWHITE1@...>, > " M. Jamison (E-mail) " <m.jamison@...>, " Maureen >(E-mail) " <Maureen@...>, " Sheena (E-mail) " ><Sheena.wright@...> >Subject: NMC >Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:34:23 +0100 > >Dear All and >Just to let you know that I have been following the debate and I have >forwarded the digest re this to all the HV's on council. There are eight >Health Visitors on council who actively promote health visiting, the >alternates play a full part in councils work and sit on committees and >working groups. You may wish to copy the alternates into future >correspondence they are - Livesey (England) (Wales) >Maureen Jamison (Northern Ireland) Sheena (Scotland) As far as I >know >there would not be a problem with us meeting with you to discuss issues and >concerns at some point. > > >nne Cowpe >Senior Lecturer/Team Leader >University of Glamorgan >Glyntaff >Pontypridd >CF37 1DL >Tel 01443 484305 >Fax 01443 483118 > > _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 Could be, although my colleague attended a NMC roadshow was told by the people running it that the NMC found itself in this 'current difficult situation' whereby the power currently resided in the Secretary of State for Health. She was very clear that the word repealed had been used. They had asked from the floor what this meant (for midwifery) and nobody was clear about anything. Nothing new there then! >From: " MEERABEAU ELIZABETH " <E.Meerabeau@...> >Reply- > >Subject: Re: NMC >Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:26:51 GMT > >I think there must be some misunderstanding. I wonder if they were >referring to the 'Henry viii clasue' (or whatever its called) which >provides for the possibility of changes in regulation without them >having to go to parliament. > > > >BCC to: >From: " Houston " <annamhouston@...> >Date sent: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:34:52 +0100 >Subject: Re: NMC >Send reply to: > >[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] > >nne, thanks for that >Also I was worried when you mentioned Hong Kong a while back that you were >jumping ship at a crucial moment. Glad to hear that you are still in the >frame. Can you shed any light on this notion of the act having just been >repealed, this is being seriously viewed from my midwifery colleagues and I >feel quite in the dark over it. > > > > >From: " Cowpe M (SoCS) " <mcowpe@...> > >Reply- > > " (E-mail) " < > > >CC: " Sheena (E-mail) " <Sheena.wright@...>, > " > > (E-mail) " <@...>, " Bronya. Webster >(E-mail) " > ><bronya.webster@...>, " Fiona (E-mail 2) " > ><Fiona.wright@...>, " Livesey (E-mail) " > ><hlivesey@...>, " IWHITE1 (E-mail) " ><IWHITE1@...>, > > " M. Jamison (E-mail) " <m.jamison@...>, " Maureen > >(E-mail) " <Maureen@...>, " Sheena (E-mail) " > ><Sheena.wright@...> > >Subject: NMC > >Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:34:23 +0100 > > > >Dear All and > >Just to let you know that I have been following the debate and I have > >forwarded the digest re this to all the HV's on council. There are eight > >Health Visitors on council who actively promote health visiting, the > >alternates play a full part in councils work and sit on committees and > >working groups. You may wish to copy the alternates into future > >correspondence they are - Livesey (England) >(Wales) > >Maureen Jamison (Northern Ireland) Sheena (Scotland) As far as I > >know > >there would not be a problem with us meeting with you to discuss issues >and > >concerns at some point. > > > > > >nne Cowpe > >Senior Lecturer/Team Leader > >University of Glamorgan > >Glyntaff > >Pontypridd > >CF37 1DL > >Tel 01443 484305 > >Fax 01443 483118 > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2002 Report Share Posted May 25, 2002 , the old Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act had to be repealed and the various functions it carried out handed over to the new Order. I am speculating here, but I think there is a period of overlap to allow the NMC to get up and running. As we know, the new Order is what is called an 'enabling order' that supposedly 'enables' Council to regulate the professions; to do that NM Council has to formally apply to the Privy Council for approval to establish or disband the registers it intends to maintain. My guess would be that we are the kind inter-regnum that always arises when there is a change of legislation; it is mainly an administrative thing that just has to happen and takes time to work through. But Liz is right; because we now have secondary legislation instead of primary legislation, an application by the NMC to the Privy Council is all that is needed to change the shape or form of the register. There is no need for a debate in Parliament. So presumably the midwives are now feeeling as insecure as the health visitors did: and rightly so, after all look how easy it was to write health visiting out of the legislation. Too late now. Houston wrote: >Could be, although my colleague attended a NMC roadshow was told by the >people running it that the NMC found itself in this 'current difficult >situation' whereby the power currently resided in the Secretary of State for >Health. She was very clear that the word repealed had been used. They had >asked from the floor what this meant (for midwifery) and nobody was clear >about anything. Nothing new there then! > > > >>From: " MEERABEAU ELIZABETH " <E.Meerabeau@...> >>Reply- >> >>Subject: Re: NMC >>Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:26:51 GMT >> >>I think there must be some misunderstanding. I wonder if they were >>referring to the 'Henry viii clasue' (or whatever its called) which >>provides for the possibility of changes in regulation without them >>having to go to parliament. >> >> >> >>BCC to: >>From: " Houston " <annamhouston@...> >>Date sent: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:34:52 +0100 >>Subject: Re: NMC >>Send reply to: >> >>[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] >> >>nne, thanks for that >>Also I was worried when you mentioned Hong Kong a while back that you were >>jumping ship at a crucial moment. Glad to hear that you are still in the >>frame. Can you shed any light on this notion of the act having just been >>repealed, this is being seriously viewed from my midwifery colleagues and I >>feel quite in the dark over it. >> >> >> >>>From: " Cowpe M (SoCS) " <mcowpe@...> >>>Reply- >>> " (E-mail) " < > >>>CC: " Sheena (E-mail) " <Sheena.wright@...>, >>> >> " >> >>> (E-mail) " <@...>, " Bronya. Webster >>> >>(E-mail) " >> >>><bronya.webster@...>, " Fiona (E-mail 2) " >>><Fiona.wright@...>, " Livesey (E-mail) " >>><hlivesey@...>, " IWHITE1 (E-mail) " >>> >><IWHITE1@...>, >> >>> " M. Jamison (E-mail) " <m.jamison@...>, " Maureen >>>(E-mail) " <Maureen@...>, " Sheena (E-mail) " >>><Sheena.wright@...> >>>Subject: NMC >>>Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:34:23 +0100 >>> >>>Dear All and >>>Just to let you know that I have been following the debate and I have >>>forwarded the digest re this to all the HV's on council. There are eight >>>Health Visitors on council who actively promote health visiting, the >>>alternates play a full part in councils work and sit on committees and >>>working groups. You may wish to copy the alternates into future >>>correspondence they are - Livesey (England) >>> >>(Wales) >> >>>Maureen Jamison (Northern Ireland) Sheena (Scotland) As far as I >>>know >>>there would not be a problem with us meeting with you to discuss issues >>> >>and >> >>>concerns at some point. >>> >>> >>>nne Cowpe >>>Senior Lecturer/Team Leader >>>University of Glamorgan >>>Glyntaff >>>Pontypridd >>>CF37 1DL >>>Tel 01443 484305 >>>Fax 01443 483118 >>> >>> >> >> >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >>http://www.hotmail.com >> >> >> >> 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.