Warning: include(/home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-content/advanced-cache.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-settings.php on line 70

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-content/advanced-cache.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/alt/php56/usr/share/pear:/opt/alt/php56/usr/share/php') in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-settings.php on line 70

Notice: get_settings is deprecated since version 2.1! Use get_option() instead. in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3378

Notice: register_uninstall_hook was called incorrectly. Only a static class method or function can be used in an uninstall hook. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 3.1.) in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3547

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class ps_auto_sitemap in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-content/plugins/ps-auto-sitemap/ps_auto_sitemap.php on line 37

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-content/plugins/ps-auto-sitemap/ps_auto_sitemap.php on line 590

Notice: add_custom_image_header is deprecated since version 3.4! Use add_theme_support( 'custom-header', $args ) instead. in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3378

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method collapsCat::init_textdomain() should not be called statically in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 496
CHRE(PSA) trumpets its success in creating a ghetto of wellbeing practitioners who are compliant (for a fee) to the Government’s fantasy of safeguarding. « Lacanian Works
Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method collapsCat::add_scripts() should not be called statically in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 496

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method collapsCat::get_head() should not be called statically in /home/u100541/public_html/lacanianworks.net/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 496

CHRE(PSA) trumpets its success in creating a ghetto of wellbeing practitioners who are compliant (for a fee) to the Government’s fantasy of safeguarding.

by Julia Evans on October 3, 2012

Contents:

1.  Introductory questions

2.  The CHRE(PSA) 3rd October 2012 circulation

3.  Attachments to the CHRE(PSA) circulation of 3rd October 2012

(i) Accredited Voluntary registers:  Standards for organisations holding a voluntary register for health and social care occupations : October 2012

(ii) Accredited Voluntary registers:  Standard 3 – Risk Assessment Guidance for Voluntary Registers

(iii) Application for Accreditation (CHRE-PSA Voluntary Registers)

(iv)  Analysis of responses to our consultation on accreditation standards for voluntary registers

4.  Comments what is driving this action

5.  Background information

6.  Additional post on how the Government is seduced by expensive ‘scientific’ solutions: Do the ‘evidence-based’ results of brain scanning debunk Freud both scientifically and in the clinic?

7.  Circulation list

Stop Press

At the bottom of this post are two messages received from within Parliament, in response to the circulation of this post.  Any further correspondence will be updated.

_____________________________________

1.  Introductory questions

Why does the Government need vast quantities of regulations, backed by legislation, in order to invent a ‘Voluntary register’ held in the CHRE(PSA)?

What is the basis for the Government’s belief that imposing their imaginary standards onto existing training organisations, trainings, ethics of practice, supervision, practices based in different frames of reference, via the CHRE(PSA) will produce safety, protection from rogue operators, & improve the efficacy of practices?

Why does the Government use its statutory might to authenticate the CHRE(PSA), when it behaves as charity muggers do and uses CON-sultation as a recruitment device? Every practitioner recruited onto the its ‘voluntary’ registers, means a donation to the CHRE(PSA)’s bottom-line.

__________________________________

2.  The CHRE(PSA) October 3rd 2012 circulation: Accredited Voluntary Registers (AVRs)

Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:00

Subject: Accredited Voluntary Registers (AVRs)

Dear colleagues,

Thank you to all who contributed to our consultation on our Standards.  We received a very favourable response.  I have made some amendments to the Standards in light of the comments made, especially to Education and they have now been approved by our Council.  We will publish them together with a covering document about the accreditation scheme, our process and our fees in November. Our response to the consultation is now available on our website and is attached.

We have started our pilots and will be carrying these out during October.   We will feed back the outcome of that in November and will also use those pilots to calculate our fees. I have attached the Standards, draft Application form and the draft Risk Assessment tool for you to try out for yourselves if you wish to.

We are running a short survey on the following three topics:

AVR Workshops

We are arranging three workshops in November, December and January in London to give you an opportunity to discuss the application process and understand more about how the accreditation scheme will operate. These workshops will also help you to prepare for application. Please let us know if you would be interested in attending one of them.

Preparing to apply

I should be grateful if you would indicate when you think you might submit your application to help us to plan our resources.

Fees

It is likely that the fee will be payable in full at the time of application and be non-refundable.  We have the option of splitting the assessment into two parts and charging for those two parts separately.  This means that we would assess whether your organisation meets the Standards set out in Part One before continuing to assess Part Two. This would provide you with an opportunity to make payment in two parts slightly separated in time and could potentially limit losses: if an organisation failed to pass Part One it would not then incur charges for Part Two.  Is this second option of interest to you?

Please find the survey at:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/voluntary-registers

Please note that we will continue to maintain a list on our new website of those organisations who are actively intending to apply.

New staff

Rick Borges (Accreditation Manager) and Dan Scott (Accreditation Officer) have now joined me.

New email

Our new email address is avr@professionalstandards.org.uk   Please use this email address from now on to correspond with the AVR team.

Best wishes,

Christine Braithwaite 
Director of Standards & Policy
Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, 
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, 
London 
SW1W 9SP
, 020 7389 8039, 
07730 624 184 
christine.braithwaite@chre.org.uk

CHRE will become the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care during 2012

3.  Attachments to the CHRE(PSA) circulation of 3rd October 2012

(i) Accredited Voluntary Registers:  Standards for organisations holding a voluntary register for health and social care occupations : October 2012

Available here

Quotes from page 1 & 2:

About the Professional Standards Authority

The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care1 oversees statutory bodies that regulate health and social care professionals in the UK. We assess their performance, conduct audits, scrutinise their decisions and report to Parliament. We also set standards for organisations holding voluntary registers for health and social care occupations and accredit those that meet them.

We share good practice and knowledge, conduct research and introduce new ideas to our sector including our approach to right-touch regulation2. We monitor policy developments in the UK and internationally and provide advice on issues relating to professional standards in health and social care.

We do this to promote the health, safety and well-being of users of health and social care services and the public. We are an independent body, accountable to the UK Parliament.

Our values are at the heart of who we are and what we do. We are committed to being independent, impartial, fair, accessible and consistent in the application of our values. More information about our work and the approach we take is available at www.professionalstandards.org.uk.

Quote from 1st page only:

1. About the Standards

1.1 Organisations must meet all of the Standards. The benchmark for each Standard is set at the level of good practice. This means that for each Standard organisations must demonstrate, where available and relevant, that they apply good practice.

2. Standards: Part One

Standard 1: the organisation holds a voluntary register3 for people in health and/or social care occupations.

3 A ‘voluntary register’ has the meaning ascribed to it under the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, section 25E (2) as inserted by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 section 228.

4 ‘Health care’ includes: all forms of health care for individuals, whether relating to physical or mental health; and procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition.

2.1 The Professional Standards Authority will decide whether an occupation is ‘health or social care’ having regard to the definition of health care set out in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, section 25E (8) as inserted by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, section 2284.

Standard 2: the organisation demonstrates that it is committed to protecting the public and promoting public confidence in the occupation it registers.

2.2 Organisations must be able to show that they are aware of the potential for conflicts of interests and ethical dilemmas. For example, they should be able to show that they understand the difference between representing the interests of their registrants or promoting confidence in the profession for registrants’ financial benefit, and raising standards to increase public confidence in registrants’ practice.

Standard 3: the organisation has a thorough understanding of the risks presented by their occupation(s) to service users and the public – and where appropriate, takes effective action to mitigate them.

2.3 The Professional Standards Authority will decide whether this Standard is met with reference to its policy, Accredited Voluntary Registers – applying the principles of Right-touch regulation to the mitigation of risks (2012) and its guidance Risk Assessment: guidance for Voluntary Registers (2012).

Footnotes page 1: 3 A ‘voluntary register’ has the meaning ascribed to it under the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, section 25E (2) as inserted by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 section 228.

4 ‘Health care’ includes: all forms of health care for individuals, whether relating to physical or mental health; and procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition.

(ii) Accredited Voluntary Registers:  Standard 3 – Risk Assessment Guidance for Voluntary Registers

Available here

Quote from page 1:

1. Guidance for applicants

1.1 Organisations that wish to be accredited by the Professional Standards Authority must satisfy the Authority that they meet the following standard:

 _‘Standard 3: the organisation has a thorough understanding of the risks presented by their profession(s) or occupation(s) to patients, service users and the public – and where appropriate, takes effective action to mitigate it’.1

1.2 This guide sets out the process that organisations applying for accreditation should follow.

1.3 Organisations should seek to proactively:

 _identify risks associated with their registrants’ practise (including their personal behaviours, technical competence and business practice), the places in which they carry out their profession and the products they typically use or supply

 _consider the potential impact on individuals, communities and the public (including where relevant public resources and assets)

 _quantify the risks

 _identify the underlying causal risk factors of those that present a sufficient risk to warrant mitigation.

1.4 This guidance should be read in conjunction with our policy Accredited Voluntary Registers – applying the principles of Right-touch regulation to the mitigation of risks (2012)2.

2. Purpose

Why does the Authority require a risk assessment?

2.1 It is important that organisations that hold voluntary registers understand what risks their registrants might present to the public to inform their decisions about the standards they set, the education and training they approve, the way they manage their register and the decisions they take about registrants who do not meet their standards.

Footnotes page 1:

1 Professional Standards Authority (August 2012) Accredited Voluntary Registers – Standards for organisations holding a voluntary register for health and social care occupations.

2 This document is currently in draft form.

(iii) Application for Accreditation (CHRE-PSA Voluntary Registers)

Available here

Quote from page 1:

1.1 Please complete all of the questions below. If you place reliance on written documents in answering these questions please reference the document and the relevant sections as follows (author(s), date of publication, title, [available at accessed at (for web publications)]. You do not need to send these documents to us with your application, we will ask for those we wish to see.

1.2 Please provide the name and contact details (including email and telephone number) for the person filling in this form and responsible for dealing with enquiries about it.

Name:

Address:

Email:

Telephone:

Background information

1.3 Please tell us about your organisation. You should provide sufficient information for us to gain an overview of your organisation and understand at a high level how it operates.

1. What is the name and address of your organisation?

….

(iv)  Analysis of responses to our consultation on accreditation standards for voluntary registers

Available here

Quote from page 1:

1. Introduction

1.1 Our accreditation standards have been developed collaboratively with organisations that hold voluntary registers and other stakeholders, including some members of our public stakeholder network. We met over 40 organisations individually and held a series of workshops in which we explored in depth issues that emerged during our meetings and in responses to our early discussion papers, which we published on our web. We have continued our dialogue and now have over 70 organisations listed on our website who have expressed an interested in being accredited by us in future.

1.2 Our consultation survey Accreditation standards for organisations that hold voluntary registers for health and social care occupations ran for three months from April and closed on 10 July. We received 442 responses, 420 (95%) of whom completed the whole survey. A total of 745 comments were made. Overall, the responses are highly favourable. Notwithstanding that, a number of the comments were very helpful and we have amended the standards as a result.

2. Category of responder

2.1 People were able to tick more than one category. 226 people said they were freelance or self-employed health or social care practitioners; 110 people said they were patients, service users or members of the public; 43 people said they had a professional interest in consumer protection; 23 were employed practitioners, 20 were private sector employers, 7 were NHS employers, 2 were commissioners. 77 people ticked other: this category included statutory regulators and professional bodies.

3. Responses to the questions

3.1 Below we summarise the responses received to the individual questions in the consultation paper.

3.2 At the end of the paper, we have collated and summarised themes emerging from the comments submitted by respondents. We also explain where we have changed the standards and why.

Quote page 4:

4. Emerging themes

4.1 Some general themes emerged from the responses to this questionnaire, including the responses made to questions 7 and 8. They are:

 Affordability – some respondents were concerned about the impact of accreditation fees on smaller organisations who might not be able to pay fees easily afforded by the larger organisations.

Page 5

4.2 We acknowledge this issue, which had also been raised before our consultation. We have suggested that smaller organisations may wish to consider joining together in some form and we are happy to discuss options with individual organisations that are considering this and will consider what it means in terms of our fees. If organisations do ‘cluster’ as we have termed it, they would still have to meet our standards.

 Volunteers – some respondents were concerned about the impact on volunteers if organisations had to pass on accreditation costs to them

4.3 This issue was also raised prior to the consultation. We are aware that some voluntary organisations are considering the cluster model. We will also consider this when we are calculating our costs and modelling our fee options after the pilots have been completed.

 Efficacy – some respondents expressed concerns about complementary and alternative therapies. Concerns included a belief that only science based disciplines should be accredited. Some respondents distinguished between complementary therapy which they saw as more legitimate because it was used alongside mainstream medical care. The greatest risks were perceived to exist where people use alternative therapies instead of accessing mainstream medical care which might result in condition not being diagnosed or treated appropriately.

 Misleading the public – some respondents expressed concern that our accrediting an organisation would be seen by the public as confirmation that a therapy works, even if we state that is not the position.

4.4 We acknowledge these concerns and have considered the comments made carefully. Our views on the role of regulation and the balance it must strike between personal freedoms and protection of the public is set out in our publication Right-touch regulation. 1

4.5 We will accept applications for accreditation from organisations that hold voluntary registers or health and care occupations and meet our standards. This includes complementary and alternative therapies that we consider fall within the scope of health or social care. Our view is that such therapies are not prohibited by law and consumers choose to use them. Our scheme is intended to enhance consumer protection and we consider that it is preferable for consumers to have the option of choosing therapists from an accredited register. However, we have some made changes to the standards in response to this feedback.

2  Ipsos MORI (April 2012) Perceptions of Risk in Health and Care Settings

4.  Comments what is driving this action

a) Secrecy

b) Safeguarding

c) The imposition of centrally devised standards onto a practice

d) The undermining & complete annihilation of any relationship of trust which is what motors treatments.

e)  The Government as Charity mugger – CON-sultations as documents leading to commitments to sign on and donate.

a)  Secrecy.

This email and its attachments were sent to selected targets, either those who have already rolled over and acquiesced to being the Government’s implementers of wellbeing & Mental Health or those seen as influential. As the author of : The UK Government’s practice (ethnic) cleansing of talking therapies: a response to CHRE/PSA consultation by Julia Evans on July 10, 2012 or here, I am air-brushed out of the picture.  ( I think analogies to the use of power by Chinese Governments, Russian Governments, the Third Reich, are very apt for what is going on here.)

The CHRE(PSA) is open about the select in-group (referred to as the ‘Famous Five’ on LacanianWorks.net) it wishes to enrapture and entrap:  ‘Appendix iv: 1.1 Our accreditation standards have been developed collaboratively with organisations that hold voluntary registers and other stakeholders, including some members of our public stakeholder network. We met over 40 organisations individually and held a series of workshops in which we explored in depth issues that emerged during our meetings and in responses to our early discussion papers, which we published on our web. We have continued our dialogue and now have over 70 organisations listed on our website who have expressed an interested in being accredited by us in future.’  So not only have they not bothered with a necessity analysis, an impact analysis or finding out whether voluntary registers really do produce ‘safegaurding’ and ‘risk-free’ treatments, they have only included stakeholders in the project.  I define stakeholders as those large organisations which are professionally run by administrators who realise their jobs are at risk if their adherents cannot get a Government practicing certificate.

This means that of the 570 training organisations found by the DoH scoping study in 2005, the 40 largest are being wooed.  Report available here

Not only am I excluded from this inner group for objecting, but it is official.  It feels as if they are so threatened by the opposition to their implementing the Government’s bonkers plans, that they have made the email confidential.  The following is the strapline from the bottom:

‘This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage, disclosure, copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail is prohibited and may be unlawful.’

So not only does this action, by one of the Government’s statutory agencies make me into an unsafe, risky practitioner and exclude me from the Government’s gravy-train (their protected clinics for the Mentally Ill)  but I am threatened with legal action for telling you about this.  The secrecy needed to keep totalitarian regimes in control, is but nothing as to the secrecy needed by the UK Government in order to impose their recommended mental health clinic onto those they diagnose via NICE to be not up to Government standards of Wellbeing (N.B. this usually means they are long-term unemployed).  Of course, it is true that as the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (see their deliberations over the psychologists) could tell them, they are breaking European Law in creating these ghettoes of Government-standard Wellbeing Practitioners.  Of course, that is why they are acting secretly.

I am repeating myself – all these points are made in the following:

Sadeian power, the UK Government……… & CON-sultations by Julia Evans on February 3, 2012.  See point ix.  Available here

This pace of moral decision-making poses insuperable challenges to several ways of thinking about right and wrong…. Giles Fraser by Julia Evans on January 20, 2012 or available here

Collaborators win: Putting the State Wellbeing Strategy to work….. by Julia Evans on February 8, 2011or available here

b)  Safeguarding

From Appendix (i)

We share good practice and knowledge, conduct research and introduce new ideas to our sector including our approach to right-touch regulation2. We monitor policy developments in the UK and internationally and provide advice on issues relating to professional standards in health and social care.

We do this to promote the health, safety and well-being of users of health and social care services and the public.

Standard 2: the organisation demonstrates that it is committed to protecting the public and promoting public confidence in the occupation it registers.

I have been struggling since 2007 (see Wellbeing & Happiness as used by the UK Government by Julia Evans on May 7, 2007 or here) to explain that protection, when it becomes an aim of governance, is always perverse.  Think the Third Reich who protected against alleged malefactors, the Inquisition who protected people from hell, the Stasi who protected them against the evils of the Capitalism, and now, in HPO 2001, the UK Government asserts that it will safeguard (i.e. protect) wellbeing and health against risky practitioners such as Dr Shipman.

Clearly, I have failed as Government-created organisations are still operating as if this were 1) a possibility and 2) a proper object for an organisation engaged with the UK’s polity.  Of course, they are correct as the delusion starts with Parliament who were megalomaniac to pass the Order in first place.

So the CHRE(PSA) are creating an elite group (think the Third Reich), who go through an unsubstantiated ritual, (there is no evidence that these top-down rules and regulations produce safety or risk-free treatments), and then get free reign (or Government-approval) to transform all the Government’s non-standard subjects back into wellbeing and health or happiness.

Why is not everybody jumping up and down?

c) The imposition of centrally devised standards onto a practice

From Appendix (i)

We assess their performance, conduct audits, scrutinise their decisions and report to Parliament. We also set standards for organisations holding voluntary registers for health and social care occupations and accredit those that meet them.

….

1.1 Organisations must meet all of the Standards. The benchmark for each Standard is set at the level of good practice. This means that for each Standard organisations must demonstrate, where available and relevant, that they apply good practice.

From Appendix (ii)

Standard 3: the organisation has a thorough understanding of the risks presented by their occupation(s) to service users and the public – and where appropriate, takes effective action to mitigate them.

2.3 The Professional Standards Authority will decide whether this Standard is met with reference to its policy,

From Appendix (iv)

1.1 Our accreditation standards have been developed collaboratively with organisations that hold voluntary registers and other stakeholders, including some members of our public stakeholder network. We met over 40 organisations individually and held a series of workshops in which we explored in depth issues that emerged during our meetings and in responses to our early discussion papers, which we published on our web.

A practice is not like a factory production line nor a medical procedure.  It is based within a relationship of trust.  I have been banging on about the difference for the last 12 years.  As I do not seem to be heard, try Giles Fraser’s take on it:  This pace of moral decision-making poses insuperable challenges to several ways of thinking about right and wrong…. Giles Fraser by Julia Evans on January 20, 2012 or available here.  This centrally-driven standards producing ‘safeguarding’, ‘protection’ or ‘risk-free’ treatments is only possible in the Government’s fantasy-mental health clinic.  The rest of us are positioned from within human subjective-ness within relationships.  One further go:  if you view Jimmy Savile through a framework of standards, he will make you believe his image: a good Catholic & extraordinary Charity-worker.  If you actually look at him as a fellow human being and ask: What is driving this behaviour – you get a very different answer.  Containing a practice within centrally derived standards (in committee rooms full of those expensively-paid Government advisors acting for the Good), is very far from operating from within the field of human-ness and subjectivity.

d) The undermining & complete annihilation of any relationship of trust which is what motors treatments.

The Government’s clinic for Mental Health which not only includes the CHRE(PSA) but also its sidekick the Health Professions Council (HPC) & NICE clinical guidelines & Skills for Health’s competencies, is based on the pontifications of expensively-paid experts, with a peacock-display of their knowledge, in Whitehall’s committee rooms (or maybe they go to the Royal College of Psychiatrists – they pay all the administration costs of Parliament’s Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group so they must know all about this form of peacock knowledge.) A practice works the other way up.  Individual’s practice is unique.  It is based in the application of their chosen treatment on themselves.  Then they expose their practice to others through supervision, case studies, discussion of changes in practice, integrating this information so that it is accessible to others.  Over time this gets built up into a body of practice held by the training organisations. Of course, the HPC has destroyed this body of information within the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Nursing and implanted their own dangerous centrally driven standards.

This Government’s complete annihilation of relationships necessary to effect any treatment is disgraceful and an abuse of power.

e)  The Government as Charity mugger – CON-sultations as documents leading to commitments to sign on and donate

Please consult Appendix (iii) Application for Accreditation (CHRE-PSA Voluntary Registers)  Quote:  Preparing to apply: I should be grateful if you would indicate when you think you might submit your application to help us to plan our resources. Fees : It is likely that the fee will be payable in full at the time of application and be non-refundable. …

Others, as well as I, have argued endlessly that the Government’s form of CON-sultation is a fig leaf to enable the Government to implement just what it wants to under the pretence that it is with agreement.  This current CON-sultation does not disappoint, if viewed from this position.  It is badly constructed – the framework driving it is never put up to question. Only those responses which agree with it are noted. Then the purpose of the CON-sultation becomes clear.  It is to get you to apply for membership of the register so that the organisation has enough funds to continue its secret and nefarious activities.  At the end of November, there will be an expensive (but never mind they will have raised enough money from this appeal) press conference with all the big collaborators in the picture. Everyone will be grinning from ear to ear at the thought of the money they are about to extract from the Government because they have been declared safe.  I will of course bring this to your attention when it happens….

__________________________________

5.  Background information, available at

CHRE (PSA) reports on how they are progressing in their regulatory capture of ‘talking therapists’ onto their ‘voluntary registers’ regulated by statute……. by Julia Evans on September 17, 2012 also here

The ‘Fat Controllers’ in the DoH dictate THE law with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament by Julia Evans on August 13, 2012 or here

The CHRE/PSA receives over 400 responses to its CON-sultation on Accreditation Standards (Voluntary Registers) by Julia Evans on July 20, 2012 or here

The UK Government’s practice (ethnic) cleansing of talking therapies: a response to CHRE/PSA consultation by Julia Evans on July 10, 2012 or here 

Open Letter to the CHRE/PSA on Accreditation Standards  by Bruce Scott on July 5, 2012  or here

For your participation: The CHRE CON-sults by Julia Evans on April 18, 2012 or here

_________________________________

6.  Additional post on how the Government is seduced by expensive ‘scientific’ solutions: Do the ‘evidence-based’ results of brain scanning debunk Freud both scientifically and in the clinic?

 

Lacanian Works

Do the ‘evidence-based’ results of brain scanning debunk Freud both scientifically and in the clinic? by Julia Evans on September 5, 2012 Or here

_________________________

7.  Circulation list

 

Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Health

Earl Howe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Standards, Health

Mr Norman Lamb MP, Lib-Dem, Secretary of State for Health

Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Health

Rt Hon Lord (Philip) Hunt of King’s Heath: Member of the Shadow Health Team

Lord Carlile of Berriew, Former Lib-Dem Spokesperson & member of the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill

Mr Paul Burstow MP, Lib-Dem, Former Minister of State for Health (Care Services) Replaced Sept 2012

Viscount Eccles  Conservative, Former member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP, Lib-Dem, – Julia Evans’ constituency MP

House of Commons Select Committee on Health

Government Members

Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell  (Chair)

Mr Andrew George MP (Lib Dem)

Dr Daniel Poulter (& Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Health)

Mr Chris Skidmore MP

Mr David Tredinnick MP

Dr Sarah Wollaston MP

Opposition members

Ms Rosie Cooper MP

Ms Barbara Keeley MP

Mr Grahame M Morris MP (& Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

Mr Virendra Sharma MP

Ms Valerie Vaz MP

Title:  Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group

Purpose:  To inform parliamentarians about all aspects of mental health.

Chair:  Mr Charles Walker  MP  Conservative

Vice-Chair: Ms Alison Seabeck MP, Labour

& Ms Nicky Morgan MP Conservative

Secretary: Baroness Murphy of Aldgate, Crossbench &

Mr James Morris MP – Conservative

Treasurer: Lord Alderdice, Lib Dem

Lord Hunt of the Wirral – Conservative

Sir Peter Bottomley MP – Conservative

Mr Chris Heaton-Harris MP – Conservative

Mr Damian Hinds MP – Conservative

Mr Guy Opperman MP – Conservative

Ms Penny Mordaunt MP – Conservative

Mr David Wright MP – Labour

Mr Grahame M Morris – Labour (also House of Commons Select Committee, Health)

Ms Kerry McCarthy MP – Labour

Mr Mike Gapes MP – Labour/Co-operative

Mr Jim Dobbin MP – Labour/Co-operative

Dame Anne Begg – Labour

Mr Russell Brown MP – Labour

Mr Jon Cruddas – Labour

Mr Hywel Williams – Plaid Cymru

Sponsors of the House of Commons debate ‘Mental Health’ on 14th June 2012

Mr Charles Walker MP, (See Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

Sir Peter Bottomley MP, (See Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

Mr Jon Cruddas MP, (See Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

Mr Mark Durkan MP, – Social Democratic and Labour Party

Dr Julian Lewis MP – Conservative

Ms Nicky Morgan MP  (See Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

Mr James Morris MP  (See Mental Health All-Party Parliamentary Group)

_______________________

STOP PRESS

Stop Press 1)  Any further communication will be circulated

From:   Health Committee 

Subject:    RE: CHRE(PSA) trumpets its success in creating a ghetto of wellbeing practitioners who are compliant (for a fee) to the Government’s fantasy of safeguarding. 3 of 3

Date:    15 October 2012 11:14:57 GMT+01:00

To: Julia Evans

Dear Julia Evans –

Thank you for your recent e-mails to the Chair of the Committee, Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell MP.

The correspondence has been noted and Mr Dorrell will respond in due course.

Health Committee

House of Commons

7 Millbank

London SW1P 3JA

 Stop press 2) Please note This address was not among the circulation list above.  It is unknown who has referred this to the Department of Health

From:   DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Subject:    Acknowledgement of case DE00000732028 received by the Department of Health.

Date:    15 October 2012 14:08:52 GMT+01:00

To: Julia Evans

Thank you for contacting the Department of Health.

This is an acknowledgement – please do not reply to this email.

Where a reply is appropriate, we aim to send one within 18 working days, or 20 working days if your query is a Freedom of Information request or complaint.

If you have contacted the Department of Health about a current health or social care campaign, please visit the Department’s website where a response may have been published.

If your enquiry is about a medical matter, please contact NHS Direct on 0845 4647 or visit NHS Choices, or contact your GP surgery.

For general health information you may also find it helpful to refer to Directgov, the UK Government’s Official information website, or the Department of Health website’s Frequently Asked Questions.  You can also view our performance against quarterly service targets.

Please note that the Department of Health does not process complaints about the NHS or social services. If you wish to make a complaint about a healthcare professional, an NHS organisation or a social care provider, please visit the ‘How to make a complaint’ page on the Department’s website.

You can find out more about the Department’s commitments from our Customer Charter and Information Charter.