Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council launch

[shankar _]

Hi

Thanks Sportstherapy, you've clarified a lot of the info out there for me. Can I just add that I am in favour of regulation (if it is done in a way which is effective, protects the public and does not alienate genuine therapists). I'm just aware there has been some heated debate already concerning professional bodies walking away from the planning meetings and so have some mild concerns.

I completely agree with you about weeding out the charlatans and improving the standards of training though... short weekend courses may be useful for CPD and expanding existing knowledge and interests, but I have seen very, very few (if any) of these courses that I think would lead students to an acceptable 'practitioner' level compared to more in-depth and properly accredited courses out there.

I study massage and reiki at the moment... I completely understand how this regulation could work for massage therapies, but when it comes to reiki, the mind kind of boggles as to how they would regulate as most reiki courses take place over one weekend (but then the learning continues on through experience and practice over a long period of time).

Anyway, thanks everyone for their posts, I'm interested in how things pan out as I'll qualify in June this year.

 

[cirestan]

Hi C_G

Interesting comments on Reiki. As a Reiki Pixie for over 12 years, I have mixed feelings about the regulation of Reiki. Part of me is up for it on a professional basis, the other part of me sees Reiki as a path of personal and spiritual development.

I've taught both short weekend workshops (CThA recognised) and the ITEC Reiki diploma, so can see how it can be impemented into a VSR situation. My personal belief (which won't happen) is that professional Reiki (ie for money in a public or private healthcare context) is more suitable as post grad/CPD training for existing therapists. One reason I think this is that I don't know of any professional Reiki practitioners in my area that practice Reiki exclusively. They all do other therapies ie IHM, massage, hypnotherapy, reflexology, crystal healing (2 year diploma stuff) etc. It's a professional and commerical reality.

Will Reiki go VSR, may be. Will many Reiki practitioners go on it, I doubt it. Will I, don't know. As a massage therapist, how can any one stop me doing Reiki if a client request it. How does one measure Reiki? So it isn't important to me really, Reiki and VSR. For now am going to blow a big raspberry at this issue and get on with the job.

Wishing you the best in your training.

RP

 

[skatebandid]

Hi Reiki Pixie

I think I agree, r.e. seeing reiki as CPD... although I know you can learn (well, get connected to) reiki in a weekend, I really appreciate some of the other stuff I've learnt on my massage course to do with treatment of clients, consultations, confidentiality, health and safety etc and all the professionalism stuff that can also apply to giving reiki treatments, as I don't think it's something that's always covered much in reiki courses... not in the same depth as n a massage course anyway (I suspect the longer ITEC and VTCT courses in reiki will differ in this respect however).

 

[mbtshoesclearance]

Hi Guys
Im not 100% clued up on Reiki, so I really dont know how well it could be regulated as a profession, however, I do know that the regulators have to take their advice on standards from the industry itself.

This is what has happened in the massage industry, the awarding bodies, and professional associations have set the minimum standards for training, which will be the minimum level to practice (hopefully all insurers will follow these standards too).

It will be the same in Reiki. I dont really think it matters how long the course is, as long as everyone is teaching to a minimum standard.

We can only wait and see with that one.

 

[Symnsmish]

Hi

I just received the following email. The knifes are out again from CAM. The only concern I have is the claim that CNHC is an agent for the big pharm. Does anyone know anymore?

One thing I have noticed reading various websites attacking CAM is that the language is very similar, like it comes from the same source. Typically mentioned is the lack of evidence, that how can we provide evidence if there is bugger all research money, or if evidence is found then the line is that it's placebo or poor quality research, not enough group of partcipants etc. Yet so much science & medicine is based on the same research methodology. If you read some of these sites, they will often say aromatherapy is just making money from scent. Well how come many of this oils have chemical constituants used in medicine. It's all double standards.

Anycase, here's this email:


Dear Colleague,

A petition has been started by David Bender from University College London calling for the government to demand evidence of efficacy and safety from Massage Therapists and Nutritional Therapy Practitioners who chose to be registered by a group called the CNHC.

As many of you know this group are already the subject of complaints under consideration by the Advertising Standards Authority in regard to their claims to regulate Practitioners of Complementary Therapy. They are doing an awful lot of damage to the credibility of well qualified and competent practitioners such as you.

Let’s stop them before they do too much more harm.

Please sign the petition at:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CNHCsafety/
Regards
Mathew Reed
A few other sites and articles of interest from both bloggers and mainstream media:
http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-wish-to-register-complaint.html
http://www.layscience.net/node/483
http://lizziejanecochran.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/in-the-care-of-christopher-hansard-in-the-wrong-hands/
Following is an article from the Guardian dated 21st January 2009guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 January 2009 12.00 GMTArticle history
On 19 January, the new Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council finally saw the light of day. Its key function is “to enhance public protection by setting standards” in an area that even most experts find bewildering: alternative medicine. All good news then? Why am I not jubilant?
The history of the CNHC reads like that of a government body in a banana republic. Several years ago, the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health (PFIH) was given £900,000 from the Department of Health and previously £1 million from the King’s Fund for setting up a regulatory framework for UK alternative practitioners. This is a lot of money for little work – and, crucially, it was given to entirely the wrong organisation. Imagine a lobby group - and that is precisely what the PFIH is - for the pharmaceutical industry, sponsored with taxpayers’ money, to regulate the pharmaceutical industry. Barmy? Corrupt? Incompetent? You decide.
Anyway, PFIH somehow did manage to spend all of it and eventually came up with the CNHC. Regulation must be a good thing, we might argue. Let’s get rid of the cowboys amongst the alternative practitioners! Let’s raid the Chinese herbal shops run by mafia-like institutions making one illegal claim after the other and ripping off the gullible public! Sadly the CNHC will not achieve any of this.
As it turns out, only few alternative healthcare professions (massage therapists and nutritionists) have opted to join the CNHC, and even for them, membership is entirely voluntary. Imagine, a practitioner is found guilty of gross professional misconduct. She might get struck off, but is the public really protected from her? No, because she can easily and instantly continue to practice as a non-member anywhere she likes.
Is all this then just a farce, a waste of money and a exercise to please Prince Charles? No, I’m afraid it is worse than that. By including the term “Natural” in the council’s name, the dangerous and already widespread myth is perpetuated that alternative therapies are all natural – and, by implication, harmless. There is nothing natural about serial dilution, as in homoeopathy, and there is not much safety (9 deaths since 1990) in chelation therapy, for instance.
Even worse, the CNHC, probably for the first time in the history of the NHS, firmly establishes double standards in British medicine. Doctors, nurses and other conventional healthcare professionals are obliged, through their codes of ethics, to adhere to the principles of evidence-based medicine; they must use treatments that demonstrably generate more good than harm for their patients. Not so the members of the CNHC! Until yesterday, their “Code of conduct, performance and ethics” was a closely guarded secret. When it was finally released, I was keen to find out what it says about evidence. The only statement I could find was the following: “You should only provide the treatment or advice if you believe this is appropriate”.

 

[Satish Kumar]

Hi RP,
thanks for the posting. It does seem that the knives are once again out! I have worked with CNHC, and I can categorically state that they are not agents of big pharma.

I have been involved in CAM for over 20 years, and I have seen the attempts by pharma to control and destroy CAM, and have been involved in many petitions against them. If I thought for one moment CNHC were involved in pharma, then I would have been their biggest opponent on here.

CAM is my livelihood, and yours too, so we all need to be fighting those that attempt to discredit us.

There has already been an attack on the credentials and credibility of CNHC, and I saw their response, and I have to say, it was wonderful to see a CAM organisation with such teeth! The offending information was very very quickly removed from the internet, as it was full of untruths, much as the article you have posted for us. The whole article is fundamentaly flawed, and quite obviously someone who is very very scared that CNHC is going to bring CAM well and truly into the public eye as something very positive, and something that the public can use with knowledge that they will be having safe and effective treatments from qualified and insured therapists.

Thanks again for posting the article and bringing it to our attention.

 

[ebenfuhdisqirmedn]

Hi St

Thanks for the reply. I did wonder if the big pharm stuff was a wind up. I knew too well as soon as I read this email that it's another attack. It did seem strange that it was attacking CAM completely but at the same time asking massage and nutritional therapists to go against the CNHC because it would darken our credibility as practitioners. What a strange twisted logic.

Best Wishes

RP

 

[Mountain Man]

In the march 2009 edition of "Reflexions" the Journal of the Association of Reflexologists (page 13) it has been recommended to members that CNHC is the best register for their needs, when the register is opened to reflexologists. Considering that the AoR is the single biggest reflexology PA with 6000 members, and CThA/Embody and FHT with 10s of 1000s of members, doesn't this suggest that the CNHC register may become a reality?

Also in Reflexions, quote: "..... CNHC also reported to the Reflexology Forum that Prudential Life and BUPA are potentially looking at reimbursing those members using CNHC practitioners and discussions will follow. Great news!"

I been saying with for years that if you can get medical/health insurers to reimburse for CAM ie reflexology, massage, aromatherapy etc, it would be good for the industry and start to rise our profile.

I hope this is great news!

Reiki Pixie

 

[hollyy. ?]

This will be interesting - the BUPA approach especially - they currently will only provide recognition to comp therapists who have been 'working in their field full time for a minimum of 5 years and who have been full members of their governing bodies for 5 years'. The therapists current comp therapies listed for recognition are expected to provide contact details of two BUPA accredited consultants that will act as referees and also refer clients. This could take years!

 

[ClickMaster]

Does anyone else have alarm bells ringing, particularly with regard to Codex?
Surely this is just a way to "regulate",overrule and water down all the formulae people already work to?

 

[Amanda & Jess S]

Hi GF

I think CNHC and Codex are two different issues. Codex is far more serious.

I don't think voluntary regulation for complementary health will water it down. In fact it might push CAM forward! It is a chance to go from a fringe activity allowed to practice under Common Law to more mainstream exceptance. It's a risk of course, but sometimes it's better to work with the flow of society than sticking our heads in the ground.

Best Wishes

RP

 

[Pompal 09.]

Hi ReikiPixie
What I was meaning in a roundabout way was: wouldn't government run governing bodies be the first to succumb to the puppetry that will be forced in through Codex?
You know - suppressive paper pushing that comes in from the top, and we're all beneath the large CNHC umbrealla powerless to resist it.

By mentioning watering down, I was trying to highlight that not all CM can be regulated in the same manner, therefore something has got to suffer along the way.

I'm a bit paranoid regarding Codex I'm afraid, and something this encouraging coming from the Government at this point in proceedings to me seems like pulling wool over our eyes.
Please forgive me for sounding like an idiot!

Alternatively if it is benign, then I accept that anything that raises acceptance of CM has got to be a good thing!

Love xx

 

[Cheating for Trophies]

I received an interesting email from a colleague today - it reads as follows:




Please PM me for contact details of the Secretary of State for Health, to whom practitioners who wish to voice their concerns may write.

 

[Mecala]

Hi Jabba,

I received the same email this morning.

Interesting that one of the hypnotherapy organisations I'm a member of ran a test vote a few months ago regarding joining CNHC. The results were that most were against it and would rather see hypnotherapy regulated along with psychotherapy etc. The only votes for joining were from hypnotherapists who also practiced massage etc which meant they could put all their therapies under one umbrella. In fact there are already two umbrella organisations within hypnotherapy that regulate the regulatory organisations. Between them (and they recognise each other's member lists), they cover pretty much every reputable hypnotherapy organisation.

TBH when the CNHC was first announced and one of the board members was interviewed on TV, I felt she came across a bit flaky, not really an image that complementary therapy needs. While I am open minded, there are some therapies that I really don't believe in (I won't name them, that's unfair on their practitioners) and would not want to be associated with. An umbrella such as CNHC would technically lump me in with those therapists.

 

[Derek Poh]

I think the sad thing here is, we are publicising blogs that are quite obviously set up to harm CAM.

Why are we so quick to mistrust something that has been set up to move CAM forward, in a way that has never happened before?

It does seem that as soon as CAM seems to be getting its act together, the knives are drawn and we are ALL branded quacks again.

If we cant at least give them a chance, then what future do we have? We have so many quacks in CAM, that are untrained, uninsured and unregulated, that it is doing us such a dis-service, and giving our critics a chance to put us down at every opportunity.

One thing I dislike about anonymous blogs etc is that people can put as many lies as they like in the public domain, and people believe them.

Lets start supporting our profession instead of damning it!

 

[iAdore]

Hi Sportstherapy

Thank you for putting my thoughts on this email so succinctly - it appears that as well as attacking the CNHC and the related therapies from the outside those of us that are part of CAM are being targeted to tear down an organisation that might help us in the long term.

In my opinion the email uses emotive language that gives quite a distorted view of situation - for example, in May, the register was opened to an estimated 25,000 Aromatherapists. How many more will be invited to join when Reiki and Reflexology are on the register? I don't think I can really judge the success of the venture at this stage - I will wait and watch.

Typical

 

[apoffdakAbold]

hi Typical,
thanks for the reply.

I agree, none of us can judge its success at this stage, we are barely 6 months in.

I have been fortunate enough to be voted onto the Professions Specific Board for massage, which means I am actively involved in CNHC. I have been attacked on forums, with people falsely accusing me of financial involvement, and getting paid etc etc, which couldnt be further from the truth. I attend meetings in London, and pay for my own travel and expenses from Manchester, and take time off to attend, which again is unpaid. I am involved because I believe that we need something to help us move our profession forward.

One of the main reasons the mainstream medical profession doesnt use CAM is because it is unregulated, and then what happens, we get regulation which is government backed, and we get attacked for it!

I have heard (and seen first hand) so many horror stories from friends in the medical profession, about deaths and disabilities caused by conventional medicine/drugs/surgery and downright lack of hygeine in hospitals, and the NHS pays millions in payouts, and what do we do about it? Not much. Yet here we are, in a profession that is about as safe as you can get, becoming regulated, and more professional, and they try to bring us down.

I think all CAM practitioners, whether they are part of CNHC or not, shouldnt attack it, when it (and all those of us involved), are working hard for each one of them.

 

[Orillgeferara]

hi Jabba,
I just wonder what concerns we should be contacting the health minister about? Concerns that CAM are finally getting their act together maybe?

 

[Lua]

Ive just had a proper look at the blogs posted and quite frankly im quite shocked that a CAM practitioner would post something like this on here, and then give advice on how to make concerns known to the govt.

These blogs are set up to directly attack CAM, and I find it disgraceful that some on here seem to support them.

 

[Pompal 09.]

Hi

I also had this email (re Jabba's post). After some consideration, I came to the conclusion that it was disinformation and was put out to cause harm.

Just another attack on CAM which reaffirms in my own eyes that what I'm doing as a CAM practitioner is right.

Best Wishes

RP