Get involved now by sending your contributions by email to firstname.lastname@example.org or write to Letters, Frontline, 14 Bedford Row London WC1R 4ED.
Congratulations to the CSP on another brilliant Annual Representative Conference (ARC) event this year.
Lauren Woolley, CSP rep, Yorkshire and Humber
Quite rightly the letter from ACPOCPC, the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Oncology and Palliative Care, (Frontline 17 April) states that there are ‘concerns and problems’ and ‘some very worrying reports of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) guidance being applied inappropriately’.
This is why the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) network chose to present this motion at ARC.
The motion was researched and written by an experienced speaker, who has spoken on numerous occasions at ARC and TUC conferences, together with another motion relating to domestic violence.
These were submitted alongside over 70 other motions which were considered by the ARC agenda committee anonymously.
Both LGBT motions were accepted for the primary agenda for ARC.
Following the acceptance of the LCP motion for ARC, comments appeared on iCSP regarding the ‘tabloid’ nature of the LGBT motion.
It was at this time that I welcomed the ACPOPC to debate the issues at ARC, which is, after all, the correct forum for discussion and debate.
While ACPOPC states the motion to be ‘ill-sourced and unbalanced’, only one speaker spoke in opposition to it, while numerous CSP members took to the podium to relate facts in addition to their own thoughts and experiences relating to the LCP.
When the vote was taken, out of the 300 delegates only two votes were cast in opposition.
While ACPOPC considers it ‘professionally inappropriate to be linked to this motion’, I would counter that its reaction to the debate indicates a lack of understanding of the processes relating to ARC.
Rachael Machin, LGBT convenor and member of the CSP Equality and Diversity Group
I read with interest Phil Gray and Helena Johnson’s appeals to students and practitioners to practise with professionalism (Frontline, Page 9, 20 February).
I do not disagree with the need to promote professionalism within practice but this is not enough to address some of the issues identified in the Francis report.
Responding to a patient who is calling out in distress is not really a professional issue; it is one of simple humanity. Jacqui Potter, University of East London
For your further information
Your letters to Frontline, should not be more that 250 words. Frontline reserves the right to edit your letters. Please ensure that you include your name, address and a daytime telephone number.
Number of subscribers: 0