Our recent article ‘Does more regulation of doctors protect the public?’ seemed to strike a chord with members and we received an unprecedented number of comments on the position Avant took in the recent National Registration and Accreditation Scheme consultation.
Many members wrote in to thank us for our submission on the consultation and to voice their support for our position on some of the key issues raised. Here are a selection of the comments on the proposed changes…
Thank you for presenting such a balanced view which will still give protection to our patients but which also protects doctors from unnecessary legislation and red tape.
Orthopaedic surgeon, VIC
It is heart warming to know that Avant has undertaken to advise regulators to minimise cumbersome and unwieldy legislation which in a clinicians’ eyes, has become a stifling burden. We are assaulted daily with new regulations (always at a cost in time or money, or both), accreditation, audits, new guidelines, opinions, commissions, enquiries and inquests. It is almost impossible to keep up. We welcome succinct, practical, low-cost and appropriately limited regulation.
Obstetrician and gynaecologist, NSW
I support the questioning of the present dogma that the solution to a problem is ‘more governance.’
In medicine we carefully weigh up if treatment of a disease is justified, knowing that for any intervention there is a risk. To recommend a course of chemotherapy, for instance, sound practice would require an accurate diagnosis, convincing evidence that the treatment works, and a knowledge of the potential harm caused by that treatment so that such harm could be understood and perhaps prevented or minimised.
Accordingly, those who believe that more governance will solve issues regarding patient safety need - to demonstrate the scale and significance of the perceived issue - to produce evidence that their intervention is effective, and to understand, justify and mitigate the side-effects of that intervention.
Until this criteria can be met, their opinion is essentially a belief system, which is hardly the basis of making sound policy.
So it is appropriate for the ‘regulators’ to be challenged regarding the evidence, or lack of, for their recommendations.
General practitioner, NSW
Having reviewed Avant’s submission on the NRAS, I agree with Avant’s position and thank you for supporting our profession through this submission.
General practitioner, VIC