Protection of the professional

First of all I wish to assure Jana Briffa (September 30) that I am well aware of the facts concerning tourism, guiding requirements as well as certain guides' practices.

However, Ms Briffa has got her argument upside down. Of course, doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, etc are issued with a warrant without which they cannot practise their profession. However, your correspondent is implying that these warrants are issued to protect their profession, which is absolutely incorrect. Warrants are issued to certify that these people have the necessary qualities/qualifications to practise whatever profession they have graduated in and to a level which is expected and required from their eventual clients. These warrants also assign responsibilities to these professionals.

In other words warrants are there for the protection of the public: the architect to design and supervise the building of safe houses (in line with building permits and practices); doctors to diagnose and prescribe the correct medication; lawyers to offer protection and guidance of their clients in a legal environment; teachers to educate and prepare students for life's eventual needs and challenges, etc.

It is true that some self-appointed 'guides' give distorted pictures of our history but similarly there are also licensed guides who are not of an acceptable standard or fail to observe ethical procedures in their duties. One should not be surprised with this because you will find bad apples in any of the professional baskets - but that does not mean that they are all rotten!

I never said or implied that guiding is so simple and I have the greatest respect for the profession. But to state that warrants are issued to protect the livelihoods of professionals is absolutely incorrect.

The law should be used to protect the public against professionals who resort to malpractice and to ensure that the public is getting service for which that professional has been warranted - but certainly not to protect the professional's livelihood.

I agree fully that every group of professionals have a right to protect their own profession but it is most unwise and unfair that such groups expect the law to do this for them.