Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
FINDINGS OF THE PANEL:
The Panel finds:
(a) that , a registered podiatrist in the State of Victoria has engaged in unprofessional conduct, being conduct which is of a lesser standard than that which the public might reasonably expect of a registered podiatrist and being conduct which is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of a registered podiatrist by his or her peers
(b) that has not engaged in unprofessional conduct (professional misconduct) and
(d) that has engaged in unprofessional conduct of a serious nature pursuant to Section 46(1) of the Act .
DETERMINATION OF THE PANEL
In relation to the finding that has engaged in unprofessional conduct of a serious nature, pursuant to Section 46(1) of the Podiatrists Registration Act 1997, the Panel, cancels the registration of (a registered podiatrist in the State of Victoria), pursuant to Section 46 (2) h) of the Act forthwith.
Why so public? Is this standard practice in the profession and other allied health professions?
I can see the upside, in that the more we all know, the less chance there is for a deregistered podiatrist to turn up and work for an unsuspecting employer.
But the downside must be huge. If all accounts are correct, she has erred. But isn't deregistration alone punishment enough? A dangerous precedent IMO.
Ron - you may be right. Its a very fine line. BUT, the documents and findings are in the public domain and the one linked to the thread above by Andy on Unprofessional Conduct Decision released by Vic Registration Board is particularly informative for all podiatrists (especially in Victoria) on our professional responsibilities.
In the UK, the HPC has a "name and shame" policy with publication of the names and allegations even before hearings! I published the allegations (minus the names, even though they were publically available) here: HPC Disciplinary Hearings as the nature of the complaints should be of interest to the Podiatry Arena community.
However, I take your point and have edited the name from the original post of this thread.
I share Ron's concern regarding the "name & shame" policy which now seems standard practice amongst regulators, as the impact this may have on individuals can be enormous. Also, the fact that this post was initiated by a panel member (Stephen Tucker) who presided over this hearing, sits uncomfortably with me. The Victoria Registration Board has its own information website where such rulings can be quite properly entered into the public domain. Is it standard practice for panel members to disseminate Board judgements to whatever medium as they see fit?
Mark Russell
__________________
"citing an indisposition due to special circumstances"
I just need to remind you (and the world) that you, too, have indulged in the practice of propogating media without understanding or knowledge of its veracity.
Feels different when you are on the receiving end, doesn't it?
The principle of broadcasting allegations before any investigation as to substance is appalling. Back in Britain, there is no legislative basis for the HPC to behave in this way. The 'publish and damn' rules are of its own creation.
Last edited by Johnpod : 20th November 2006 at 10:27 AM.
Reason: To put the B in britain
I just need to remind you (and the world) that you, too, have indulged in the practice of propogating media without understanding or knowledge of its veracity. Feels different when you are on the receiving end, doesn't it?
Can't pretend to know what you're on about. Maybe you can remind me (and the world too, of course) what it is you think I've done?
Mark Russell
__________________
"citing an indisposition due to special circumstances"
Podiatrist Deregistered
Linear Mode
