Jump to content

Talk:Licensure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Licensure jurisdictions

[edit]

Licensure is permission or legal authority unexclusive to organisational membership. Federal and/or local jurisdiction never regulate the membership aspect of professional licensure. Aoso0ck (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what changes do you want made to the article, and could you provide the citations you mentioned too please, thanks. Verbal chat 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensure or legal authority to carry on a business or learned trade, additional ("Other uses of licensure", the qualification of the term not limited exclusively to the few, highly salaried professionals). Unnecessary, prevelent prejudise among licensed highly salaried vs typical commoners seems unapplicable towards usual licensure. pervasion of medical exclusivity pervading licensure unnessary to a common licensee. Aoso0ck (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Aoso0ck, sorry we got off to such a poor start on this. If I understand your comment correctly (forgive me if I don't) you wish to expand the article to give more emphasis on the non-professional forms of licensure, such as the various forms of driving licenses, or ownership licenses such as car or gun licenses. Is that correct? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be his idea. In which case he needs to write a new (fully referenced) section distinguishing between the more formal employment aspects of licensing, which the article already addresses at length, and add some new stuff about its less formal non-employment aspects; hopefully that will expand the article in that perfectly valid direction. I have absolutely no objection to such an addition as long as the other well-sourced material is not deleted yet again. thanks Peter morrell 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must egotists claiming elite exclusiveness in a society of common persons be applicable as "ethical" practitioners of a standard of practise? Aoso0ck (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand that comment. Was I the guess I made above on what you want to add to this article correct or incorrect? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was incorrect; reverts toward "exclusive" membership turns away from licensure as a legal permission to carry on a business or practice a profession; primarily legal rights of which a granted licensure qualifies a licensee to perform. Aoso0ck (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war. I'm sorry, I'm still finding your comments rather difficult to understand. Is it that you disagree with the definition of "licensure" used in this article? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The additions have been incomprehensible (poorly written and hard to understand) and totally unsourced; they have screwed up the entire article, so I have had to revert them to get the article back into decent shape. The proposed changes are unsourced and unnegotiated. I would suggest new stuff be discussed here first and built around some good sources in-line with the basic flow of the current article. thanks Peter morrell 03:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing Inaccuracy and Incoherence

[edit]

Is "licensure" some peculiarly North American form of licencing? The examples given from the UK are inaccurate, and it may be better if they were removed.

It is not the case in the UK that "licensure" to practice a profession is coming to depend on ascent through the grades of membership of a professional body. The trend is instead towards the setting up of separate registering authorities, with mainly non-professional and governmental membership.

The examples given from the UK of licensing by professional bodies are also wrong. In architecture, "FRIBA" is not a licence to practice: this Fellowship is an honour given by the Royal Institute of British Architects to a distinguished practitioner. The diplomas of the Royal College of Physicians in London are not now licences to practice medicine either: "LRCP" was originally a licence to practice for a small parcentage of the profession before the predecessor of the General Medical Council was set up 150 years ago, later became part of a basic qualification in medicine (obtained before registration) and has not been awarded since 1999. MRCP and FRCP were never licences to practice.

The medical scandals of the 1990s and more recent years referred to do not explain the change from licensure for life to the possibility of losing it for malpractice. Annual fees to remain licenced to practice medicine were introduced in the 1960s when inflation made a single payment on graduation uneconomic. Loss of licence for misconduct was possible even when separate professional bodies controlled entry to practice, and was always part of the function of the General Medical Council. Revalidation was being discussed long before the recent headlines, but there was no interest in paying for it: the change is due to the government's need to be seen to be doing something.

Milton Friedman may have something to do with deregulation in the USA, but in the UK it was Adam Smith who was given credit for delaying introduction of a national system of medical registration by several decades, due to his followers' enthusiasm for the "hidden hand" of the market. NRPanikker (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a mix of good points and some not so good. Pity your rhetoric does not include some sources to support your POV. The situation is more complicated for medicine and for other professions. They have tended to evolve away from licensing (a pre 20th century method) towards professional bodies, but I will try to find some good sources to improve the article in that direction. Please feel free to do the same. Also, the licences for pilots, boxing, football, referees, teaching, etc etc examples do need including as well. The article needs polite collaboration rather than criticism and edit wars. thank you Peter morrell 07:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made a few changes to the text based on the above comments, but I think a daughter article specifically covering medical licensing might be required to cover that topic in detail as it is way too complex, just in the UK, for inclusion into this article, which should be kept more broad and general in its context. If such a daughter article were created, then editors could also add details of the specific type of medical licensing in their countries. This might be one way forward. Peter morrell 11:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. There is already a medical license article, but is a stub waiting to be fleshed out. I see a two way swing of the pendulum when it comes to licencing in the health professions. For example, medicine in England was largely practiced without qualifications in the Middle Ages, before the bishops became empowered to issue licences to practice in medicine or surgery in their own diocese by a statute of Henry VIII: the new professional bodies (and the two universities) became empowered to give qualifications or licences that over-rode diocesan boundaries, until medical registration began at national level circa 1858. When I get all the references together I may put some details of this into the Medical Licence article.

The General Medical Council has evolved since the war from a body controlled by the Universities and Royal Colleges through their nominees to more democratic representation of the profession by elected delegates before changing course again: now they are on track to become a QUANGO of appointees with public and governmental influence outweighing the professional.

Something similar is happening to British psychology. There are several struggles going on: practitioners versus academics, insiders versus outsiders (i.e. senior professionals versus consumers), psychodynamic versus behavioural. The British Psychological Society used to run its own Diploma in Clinical Psychology, but this was replaced by MPhil and now doctoral programmes run by the universities. The professionals developed and control access to Chartered Psychologist status, but the licensing scheme soon to begin will be managed along with that of several other health professions, by a separate body with input from but not control by psychologists.

It might be worth pulling together details of the Chartership schemes that have grown up in Britain in recent years (e.g. Chartered Chemist and Chartered Scientist), to note how they differ from and may coexist with licencing.

Another point is the overlap of disciplinary functions, the increasingly forensic aspect of proceedings and the movement from private (in-house) to public justice. A lot of social and professional bodies have provision for investigating or expelling members for misconduct, as do unions, employers, colleges and licensing authorities. Some are no longer active in this sphere, or wait for a lead body to take action before following suit: e.g. the British Medical Association has provision for this, but no-one has to be a member of the B.M.A. The General Medical Council is soon to become an investigating and prosecuting body, and its judicial functions are to be passed to an outside tribunal. Perhaps this will happen to some of the other licencing bodies.

A lot of this is happening on public safety grounds: although Milton Friedman may doubt the need to limit employment as a plumber to those with approved qualifications, many would like to be sure that their electrician or gas central heating technician knew what he was doing. NRPanikker (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with Friedman that societies generally are becoming way too over-regulated and credentialised to the extent that soon even a boot polisher will have to have a degree in boot polishing before they can even touch a boot brush! that's how stupid it's getting. His other argument also holds water: restricitng entry to professions is not even necessary or productive to the public good, in most cases, and only serves to maintain the high salaries and high status of the profession; even when society is calling out for more doctors, midwives, lawyers, etc the universities refuse to lower entry requirements or to expand their courses. As Friedman says, 'exactly why should this be so?' I will take a look at the medical license article and see if it can be patched up with anything new and good. thanks Peter morrell 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Licensure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Licensure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Licensure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Licensure&oldid=1203586029"