In Defence Of CASA
Thread Starter
In Defence Of CASA
In the interests of balance in discussion regarding CASA, there is an emerging horror story which I think describes what can happen to the public safety when a regulator gets too lax
.
I am referring to the disgusting conduct of the AHPRA - The Australian Health Practicioners Regulation Agency, which has been exposed by The Age and SMH to be utterly ineffective in protecting the general public from predatory cosmetic “surgeons’. The behavior of this so called “regulator” is an instructive counterpoint to debates about CASA.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/f...22-p5bboj.html
https://www.theage.com.au/national/i...17-p5baio.html
.
I am referring to the disgusting conduct of the AHPRA - The Australian Health Practicioners Regulation Agency, which has been exposed by The Age and SMH to be utterly ineffective in protecting the general public from predatory cosmetic “surgeons’. The behavior of this so called “regulator” is an instructive counterpoint to debates about CASA.
During this clinic visit the patient's cousin described that the patient was given 8-9 anaesthetic needles, and having a hole cut with scissors into her buttock. There was an instant strong and offensive smell when the cut was made that she described as smelling like a mixture of vomit and faeces. The patient said she had 10/10 pain and was screaming. Dr Najem asked her not to scream as there were other clients in the waiting room. Dr Najem provided her with some gauze to bite down on to prevent her screaming. The patient's cousin described what she witnessed as brutal, involving cutting with scissors into the buttocks, and that it looked like Dr Najem did not know what he was doing."
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) prides itself on being a risk-based regulator with a guiding principle of “minimum compliance and enforcement action appropriate to manage the risk posed, to protect the public”.
Social media experts Maddison Johnstone and Michael Fraser say this is basically saying the agency will do only the minimum. “This policy means doctors are being given the green light to advertise how they want as the benefits to their business outweigh the risks,” Johnstone says.
Many experts believe patients aren’t adequately protected. They argue it isn’t just cosmetic cowboys at fault but regulators that allow them to operate with virtual immunity.
Regulatory specialist Andy Schmulow describes AHPRA as a “broken and dysfunctional regulator, weak, feckless, suborned”.
“Once you have failed to adhere to your principles of priority, number one, patient welfare, I think that’s a fatal error,” he says.
Lawyer Margaret Faux, who is also a registered nurse and health regulation expert of 40 years, says the health system is an incoherent mess and describes AHPRA as pathetic.
Social media experts Maddison Johnstone and Michael Fraser say this is basically saying the agency will do only the minimum. “This policy means doctors are being given the green light to advertise how they want as the benefits to their business outweigh the risks,” Johnstone says.
Many experts believe patients aren’t adequately protected. They argue it isn’t just cosmetic cowboys at fault but regulators that allow them to operate with virtual immunity.
Regulatory specialist Andy Schmulow describes AHPRA as a “broken and dysfunctional regulator, weak, feckless, suborned”.
“Once you have failed to adhere to your principles of priority, number one, patient welfare, I think that’s a fatal error,” he says.
Lawyer Margaret Faux, who is also a registered nurse and health regulation expert of 40 years, says the health system is an incoherent mess and describes AHPRA as pathetic.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/i...17-p5baio.html
Last edited by Sunfish; 24th Aug 2022 at 14:43.
It’s a justification for proper regulation.
Whether an individual regulator has the corporate competence, integrity and resources to properly regulate is a related but different question.
Whether an individual regulator has the corporate competence, integrity and resources to properly regulate is a related but different question.
Can this thread be blocked or deleted or similar? It appears to have nothing to do with CASA or aviation in any way?
Thread Starter
Both CASA and HPRA have the same mission; to regulate the provision of safety sensitive goods and services to the general public. The business objective is similar; CASA regulates the provision of the total aviation system: - training, equipment, organizational design and operations. AHPRA apparently is responsible only for the quality of surgeons and not the surgical infrastructure.
It has been argued that CASA micromanages aviation and is specifically required by the Act to be unresponsive to economic imperatives of the industry ie: - “safety above everything else”.
AHPRA appears to represent the reverse approach; it is apparently funded purely by the surgery industry. The outcome of that appears to be regulatory capture by the surgeons it claims to be regulating with predictable and devastatingly bad results.
The lesson is clear; Advocates of Aviation reform need to be careful what they wish for.
It has been argued that CASA micromanages aviation and is specifically required by the Act to be unresponsive to economic imperatives of the industry ie: - “safety above everything else”.
AHPRA appears to represent the reverse approach; it is apparently funded purely by the surgery industry. The outcome of that appears to be regulatory capture by the surgeons it claims to be regulating with predictable and devastatingly bad results.
The lesson is clear; Advocates of Aviation reform need to be careful what they wish for.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both CASA and HPRA have the same mission; to regulate the provision of safety sensitive goods and services to the general public. The business objective is similar; CASA regulates the provision of the total aviation system: - training, equipment, organizational design and operations. AHPRA apparently is responsible only for the quality of surgeons and not the surgical infrastructure.
It has been argued that CASA micromanages aviation and is specifically required by the Act to be unresponsive to economic imperatives of the industry ie: - “safety above everything else”.
AHPRA appears to represent the reverse approach; it is apparently funded purely by the surgery industry. The outcome of that appears to be regulatory capture by the surgeons it claims to be regulating with predictable and devastatingly bad results.
The lesson is clear; Advocates of Aviation reform need to be careful what they wish for.
It has been argued that CASA micromanages aviation and is specifically required by the Act to be unresponsive to economic imperatives of the industry ie: - “safety above everything else”.
AHPRA appears to represent the reverse approach; it is apparently funded purely by the surgery industry. The outcome of that appears to be regulatory capture by the surgeons it claims to be regulating with predictable and devastatingly bad results.
The lesson is clear; Advocates of Aviation reform need to be careful what they wish for.
Who are you talking about, Sunfish?
How is, for example, advocating for the adoption of a particular rule set tantamount to advocating for the AHPRA model for aviation safety regulation?
How is, for example, advocating for the adoption of a particular rule set tantamount to advocating for the AHPRA model for aviation safety regulation?
