24 Jun 2021
New support group for veterinary staff who work with chronic illness is calling on the RCVS to look again at proposals that would allow limited registration for individuals with disabilities, among other options.
Paul Imrie
Job TitleA new group representing vet staff with chronic illness is calling for the RCVS to think carefully about proposals that could lead to limited licensure for people with disabilities.
Limited licensure is being considered as one part of a raft of changes the RCVS would like to see brought in under new legislation that would effectively update the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act. It is an option that could be taken forward with other recommendations to modernise the college’s registration processes.
But a new group yet to officially launch on the veterinary scene – British Veterinary Chronic Illness Support (BVCIS) – says the concept is “rife with issues” and urged the RCVS to reconsider.
In the full report of the Legislation Working Party (LWP) – which went out for major consultation and will form the template for the college’s legislative reform discussions with the Government – a recommendation to “introduce provisions to allow limited licensure in principle, including for those with disability” was included.
According to the LWP report, “limited licensure” would mean suitably qualified individuals being licensed or registered to “undertake less than the full range of activities” considered acts of veterinary surgery.
This could not only allow vet graduates from overseas to come to the UK to meet workforce shortages in key areas, but also allow UK graduates – where disability prevents them from being able to undertake the full range of the degree or work practice – to become MRCVS and work in areas, such as to “teach, undertake research, work in pathology, veterinary regulation, politics or policy”.
The BVA and BVNA fear introducing limited licensure will create a two-tier system – and now the BVCIS, which was officially launching next month, released a statement early about limited licensure.
The statement said: “Change is sorely needed in the way that vets with chronic illness and disability are viewed and supported within the profession, but the concept of creating different categories of vet is rife with issues and unlikely to tackle the discrimination that already exists within the wider veterinary community.
“We believe that the RCVS has made this proposal with good intentions, but we are alarmed at the significant risk that this approach may result in more harm than good.”
It continued: “Any system that is developed runs the significant risk of being simplistic and inflexible. Chronic illness and disability are extremely complex, and the experience of living with ill health is never the same between two individuals.”
The statement added: “Self-regulation regarding scope of practice is already in place, and to our knowledge has worked well to date. We are not aware of any compelling reason why this would need to be changed.
“We wholeheartedly acknowledge that there is a need for change regarding the admission of vet students, but we see no reason why this self-regulation cannot be extended to them, too.”
It concluded that alternative ways to demonstrate fulfilment of Day One Competencies exist, and medical colleagues were already leading the way in this.
At its full council meeting, limited licensure was kept as a future option to consider among legislation proposals to work up for submission to Government, but further work on any detailed proposals remains some way off.
In an RCVS statement on limited licensure released on 18 June, president Mandisa Greene said: “Regarding limited licensure, our proposals are intended to widen access to the veterinary professions by allowing people who cannot currently fulfil all the criteria of the current Day One Competences, due to physical and/or other disabilities, the chance to fulfil their potential by entering vet school and becoming qualified veterinary surgeons.
“While there would be certain restrictions on areas of their practice after they qualify, there is no suggestion that this would result in a two-tier system, and we would look to the veterinary and veterinary nursing associations to support positive and inclusive culture so that this would not become the case.
“At present, people with such disabilities cannot become vets at all, which we feel presents a significant loss to the professions and society as a whole.”
