
09/07/2025
Interesting times when the regulators & make rules but fail to in essence, understand that specialities are regulated by Colleges and Boards that govern our training, conduct and keep us in line and working within scope in order to work within the given speciality.
When there is no recognised speciality, as with there’s no:
- prerequisites to apply for training
- minimum standardised training upon entry into a training program
- training requirements with logbooks as with all procedural specialities
- exit examination to qualify as minimally competent
- an expectation that all graduates of this training uphold a minimum standard within a narrow scope to stay current.
So when regulators say we may not use certain terms nor even educate patients on normal vs atypical outcomes with drugs which are highly sought on eBay etc, we risk outcomes such as these behind closed doors which is arguably more dangerous.
- this isn’t safeguarding the public; it’s gagging actual experts to allow misinformation to continue to flow.
- it’s allowing minimally qualified people with questionable training and skillset to act like salespeople with a licence to harm
How is this safer? It’s a genuine question from someone who genuinely enjoys educating people, 99% of whom will never be my patients, but now find myself unable to say much at all.
Is this what we want for a speciality that’s not going to go quiet but which may go underground?