Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council launch

[Katamadze]

Hi

Thanks for all the replies, and the really interesting points. At the end of the day as long we still have the right to practice, which voluntary self-regulation wouldn't of stopped and the HPC are not interested thank goodness, it's just business as usual. The 6 clients I treated today don't care about this stuff, so I'm thinking why should I?

Best Wishes

RP

 

[Magnum Heaven]

I believe the role at CNHC was advertised and David Colquhoun applied. His credentials are impressive and in their innocence, and I suppose naivety, CNHC offered him the role. I'm not sure how old the correspondence is that RP is quoting, but I think he has held back on his comments since his appointment. I would also guess that he has carried out his role professionally, although I have no doubt he remains a knowledgeable and powerful uber sceptic.

CNHC do face a financial challenge and I guess the question is---will the Dept. of Health continue their financial support when they review the situation in Spring 2011? If not CNHC need to look at their financial model very very quickly. Their current costs are unsustainable given their level of income--my personal opinion is that they could run on a fraction of their current costs. All they need to do is keep an accurate register and a very sharp set of teeth if registrants misbehave. To establish credibility with the public, orthodox medicine, private health insurers and those who choose to register, being 'struck off' has to mean something.

 

[Violet_Purple_Pink]

No one can be that naive, his attitude was apparent at the start and if the web site still contains all of his comments, then he has not held back on them.



Perhaps those teeth should be turned inward to make themselves more creditable.

 

[Rush]

Perhaps. On the naivety issue-although David Colquhoun is well known in some circles I would guess most readers of this forum would be unaware of him, and perhaps that included those at CNHC as well. To put a fairer interpretation on his appointment perhaps it was a case of 'keep your friends close but your enemies closer'.

 

[The Reincarnation]

Might have been - but it hasn't changed him any - judging by his website!

 

[Frantastic]

hi all,
well I did say I wouldnt be posting again, but I feel so strongly about this subject that I cannot sit back and not post some of the facts.

On the matter of David Colquhoun, 1) he applied, and had the right experience etc for the job; 2) he has to abide by CNHC codes of practice, ie, not make any disparaging remarks about CNHC, if he is doing so, then please, if you care about CAM, complain to CNHC; 3) if someone is so anti-CAM, why not give them a role, to see how it ISNT quackery, and that there is an organisation out there willing to make waves and raise standards, as SM said, keep your friends close and enemies closer (perhaps); he is one person on a board of many, in relation to disciplinaries, he would make his judgement on the facts in front of him, not on his views about CAM.

One other point I wish to make, I have been involved in CAM, for over 20 years, and I have NEVER heard of him, until I read about him on here. I have some very very dear friends who are surgeons, GPs, consultants and various health professionals, and they have exactly the same viewpoint as him, its their opinions and they are entitled to them (just as those in CAM who critisise CNHC are entitled to theirs.....please, no double standards).

The next thing is this very unfortunate email that keeps being circulated. The sad thing is this is being sent by a complementary therapist. Now I obviously cannot name names, or organisations, but let me say this.....it is for PURELY financial reasons. We have CNHC who have been recognised as THE regulators. As RP says, its VOLUNTARY regulation, so you dont have to register, however, please do this from your own choice, not because you have read some dreadful spam, for some very very bitter people.

Just a couple more things and then im done.....

There are those on here that ferociously defend some of the shall we say, poorer quality courses on here, yet they ferociously attack the regulators, who are here to make sure standards rise.......im not going to say any more on this.

On the matter of disciplinary hearings, ive said before that CNHC will NOT accept anonymous complaints. Having sat on some recent disciplinaries, I can say they have been quite nasty cases of abuse, who on earth would NOT want these people reported to the regulator??

Going back very briefly to the scam email....it mentions that you should contact your PA to get them to leave CNHC (they dont actually join?), but I know that any PA worth its salt, and who cares about its members, are either involved with CNHC, or wants to be involved with them.....why? because they realise that without this in place, CAM will never get the recognition it deserves, standards will not be driven up (and on that matter, PAs and awarding bodies are all looking to make sure they meet CNHC standards), and we will be stuck in the dark ages.

If CNHC does fail, and I hope it doesnt, I will be happy in the fact that it has managed to raise standards in the professions it regulates.

 

[red]

The only dreadful comments and bitterness come direct from the website. So the word spam IMO does not come into it. Unless it is a mock website peoples choice will be affected by his still venomous attack on CAM.



I would have thought that the CNHC would have internal procedures to cover this, as the website must be in breach of the Codes of Practice?

 

[zerojohnnyx]

Im sorry Healistic, as much as I am a supporter of CAM, every person is entitled to their own opinions. This man states his opinions based on the fact that there is little or no scientific basis for a lot of what we do. That is life.

The spam email that I am talking about is the one that RP has posted, which IMO is NOT an attack on this individual, it is an attack on CNHC, just look at the wording, and this IS spam, sent by an individual that wants to keep the money flowing his way.....

I can understand why therapists moan about the named individual sitting on the CNHC, but has anyone complained to them? If you dont like it, do something about it. Ive told them what I think, maybe others should voice their own opinions?

On one last point Healistic, when you say that this website will affect peoples choices, I disagree. As ive said, ive been in this business for over 20 years, and neither myself or any of my clients have ever heard of this individual, people use our services because they work for them, otherwise they wouldnt use us, and come back for more. Websites like this are read by the scientists, the academics, and the medical profession, who think we are all quacks anyway, and dont want to change their opinions.....I have thick skin, I make people better, and I earn a nice living...a few words by these people isnt going to bother me.

As I said earlier, why attack an organisation that IS trying to help CAM. If you dont want to join them, then thats fine, but why stoop to the level of these CAM detractors, and start aiming critisism at people in your own profession? Best to just ignore them.

 

[happy]

That is fine if he leaves it at that.



Thats funny mine was from a female.





I have been in this business since 1976 and I have heard of him before.



That is of course your opinion and you are entitled to it as I am of mine.

 

[ToothOfTheBull]

I think the CNHC need to clarify if a therapist will go up before a disciplinary panel where (looking at the list) no-one from their own profession appears to be represented on the panel, and one of the panel apparently thinks that their therapy is mumbo jumbo.

As for him not making disparaging remarks about the CNHC, what about the therapists themselves? I wonder if the CNHC are also expecting therapists to pay for the privilege of proving to him that what they do isn’t quackery. As for keeping our enemies closer, how many of us would knowingly employ anyone in our private practice who thought that what we did was quackery?



I have also been in CAM for a long time, and also know many people who agree with him. The difference is that the people I know who have the same opinion as him are not members of a regulatory organisation I belong to and influencing the decision making about therapies they think quackery, whilst I pay for the privilege.



Ooh do you mean me? I’m hurt ........

I don’t intentionally defend specific courses, (no one has slagged off my DL diploma course in oriental toe hair plucking yet ) but I defend my right to make an informed choice about how I wish to train, or add to my professional skills, and I'm not going to roll over when a pro regulator is (ferociously ) rude about my training. In the real world the regulated work alongside the unregulated. Anyone sleepwalking into regulation thinking that it will make them more important than those of us who choose not to be regulated or that it will make them more commercially successful are likely to be disappointed.

The regulators can only raise standards of those they regulate, i.e. those who want to register. They cannot regulate the unregistered. Unless the law changes, they have no power over the regulated’s “competition.” They won’t be shutting any courses down any time soon.

The regulator is there to protect the public. Even without this controversial CNHC appointment, the regulator is not there to protect registrants/therapists and haven’t a hope in hell of raising standards across the board without a change in legislation. It was already a long way off, but to get protected titles is now one step further away if CNHC members think the CAM they regulate is quackery, or are prepared to employ people who do.

To be fair though, I see the CNHC have picked up on the email, as there is a note on their website. Their full response will be interesting, and of course there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation.



Rustic

 

[Jesusimirear]

Hi

After a lot of thought wondering what the email I posted is all about (apart from highlighting a CNHC employee being a CAM arch-skeptic, a strange contradiction indeed). I have a gut feeling that is more to discredit the CNHC. In post #96 I mentioned could this be an attack from a rival register? I would not be surprised if they is a commercial interest behind the attack, and here we all are arguing over CNHC and VSR. Prehaps this is the idea of the email and we are being manipulated. After all there is good money to be made in setting up a register. Anyone can do it, but does it help to deliver standards and have "teeth"? Very often no. Just a load of hot air. Sounds nice on the leaflet: "Member of the International Register of Mongolian Toe Hair Plucking Therapists". You could have MIRMTHPTh after your name!

All jokes aside, after all these years of talk about a national multi-therapy register it's here. What I would like to ask you all a few questions:

1. Do you want a more united front to push CAM into the 21st century?

2. Do you prefer to go for it alone and just develop your own practice?

3. Do you wish to see CAM develop & expand, but in a different way than the CNHC?

Best Wishes

RP

 

[Pompal 09.]

I do think it would be good for CAM to present a united front, and whether it is with CNHC or another organisation is not the issue.

It concerns me greatly that on CNHC's disciplinary committee there is a member who considers all CAM to be quackery as stated very clearly on his website. That is his opinion and everone is entitled to their opinions, but not everyone who is so radically opposed to complementary forms of treatment is on the disciplinary committee of an organisation set up to promote CAM.

I think anyone would be justifiably extremely concerned and aggrieved if they happened to be called to account in front of this committee when one of its members did not even understand what was being discussed in their defence. That is what provoked my reaction. I would suggest his appointment was not conducive to good relations and trying to meld an organisation for the benefit of us all.

That being said, there is some good news in support of CAM - see here so is there a glimmer of hope for David Colquhoun? I doubt it!

 

[haley_baby]

I've made this point earlier in this thread but I'll go again with it and expand on what I posted.

I really can't see a united front across all disciplines of CAM actually working. CAM is such a broad spectrum of therapies nowadays (there seems to be a new therapy appearing every six months!), it would be like herding cats. Personally, I would rather see each individual therapy, or group of related therapies, work in a more focussed manner.

The main reasons for this are:

1) Let's suppose I'm a member of a regulatory body such as CNHC and a complaint against me is investigated. Would I rather the investigation was run by a panel of people who understand what I do, or a panel made up of people who may, or may not, have the faintest clue about hypnotherapy? (or worse still, the panel contains members who don't believe in CAM at all, as is the case here!).

2) Although open minded, and I do in fact use several other complementary therapies myself, there are several other therapies that I believe really are just a load of hocus pocus. Why on earth would I want to belong to an organisation that categorises me and my therapy in an umbrella term that contains these therapies/therapists?

Hypnotherapy already has two umbrella organisations ( http://www.ukcho.co.uk and http://www.hypnotherapyregulation.co.uk ) which oversee the various independent regulatory bodies (these organisations, one in particular, have been around since long before CNHC), which also recognise each other's lists. When a test vote regarding CNHC was put to hypnotherapists, the only ones for CNHC were those who worked within multiple disciplines (unrelated ones at that), who saw CNHC as a chance to lump all their practices together. The others preferred to step away from such a huge umbrella and be associated with pracitices such as psychotherapy.

I believe this is the way forward for CAM, not an attempt to put a huge umbrella over the entire spectrum where a committee could potentially contain members who don't understand and/or believe in the therapies they oversee, as well as members who might not be happy with some of the other practices that have been lumped in with them.

Sorry but in my opinion, CNHC is trying to bang a square peg into a round hole by trying to cover too wide a spectrum and is therefore destined to fail. The concept is obviously well intended but I'm sure we can all list quotes about good intentions! I certainly won't be joining CNHC at present, although I remain open minded in the future in the unlikely event they find a way such an organisation could actually work the way it is intended.

 

[Fipi]

Best wishes
Rustic MIRMTHPTh.

 

[Tomsdottir]

ahhhhh healthy debate.....ive missed it. Thank you Reiki Pixie!

Rustic, I wasnt aiming anything at you personally, im not that petty, I know your opinion, but it is not just yours, it is the view of many on here. We just differ on it.

Scaremongering. Im sorry, but CNHC is a VOLUNTARY self regulatory organisation and it has NO power over legal marketing. Recent complaints made to the regulator about marketing, was because it was ILLEGAL marketing and advertising. Claims made about cures etc, which we all know is illegal. What happened to the therapists in question? They were advised to change their wording....simple. If they didnt, what would happen? Removal from register? Maybe, who knows, but most definately legal action taken by the Advertising Standards Agency. NOT legal action by CNHC! Im sorry, but if you do your job properly, what is there to worry about?

All PAs can offer advice on advertising and marketing, take them up on it. Why blame CNHC for something that has been LAW for much longer than they have been around.

Re disciplinary hearings....the man in question is a lay member, ie, he doesnt have any knowledge of therapies (which IMO is quite obvious with his website), however, there are experts there from the different professions who will offer advice if it relates to the therapy. As yet I dont know any complaints that are directly linked to the therapy, only to the advertising etc, as stated above, and by the way, the complaints seem to be made by the same group of people who have been attacking the Chiropractors.

CNHC are NOT there to destroy anyones careers or professional standing. If that is what they were there for, then myself and all my colleagues would do our best to discredit them, I can guarantee you of that.

Anyway, whether CNHC lasts or doesnt, this is what will be achieved:

1) Educational standards being raised. This is happening already. It doesnt have to be legislated for, as has been mentioned. Ofqual/QCA, the sector skills agencies and awarding bodies are all working with CNHC to raise standards. We have NOS, we have qualifications on the framework. We DO have national minimum standards in lots of the therapies, and if your training/qualification doesnt meet them, then they are below (sub) standard, that isnt me claiming this, its fact.

2) Therapies being offered on NHS. This too is happening. CNHC registration more often forming part of the criteria.

3) CAM being accepted for health insurance/cash back claims. Again, this is happening, slowly but surely. Most companies have insisted on the profession being regulated. Now we have regulation, they are accepting this.

Now not everyone is going to be interested in the above, and thats fine. But certainly the therapists that I talk to are interested in at least 2 out of the 3.

Anyway, holidays await, so I will leave you to carry on this healthy debate

 

[Ol Jackrabbit]

No we don’t need organisations like the CNHC to destroy anyone’s career or professional standing. There are therapists out there already quite happy to do that to other therapists. The CNHC is just another stick.




You might think that educational standards are being raised, but professional manners are clearly declining. Perhaps you should make a suggestion to include it in the national minimum standards criteria? As for you considering that I have sub standard training, I’m happy to let the commercial market decide rather than the box ticking stick wielding brigade.

Whatever hoops the NHS etc expect people to jump through, in the private sector it doesn’t matter where or how someone has trained, what matters is that they can do what they do well, safely and legally, are insured, and that they can work with and alongside other therapists and treat clients without acting like they are God’s gift to CAM. You can put the CNHC on whatever pedestal you like, but at the end of the day they are an organisation that very few people have heard about, even less care about, and despite their lack of powers and latest PR mishap is already being used for commercial one-up-manship. If the HPC is anything to go by, professional terrorism will be next. CAM against CAM. The writing is already on the wall.

You may be lucky to have built up a successful practice pre regulation, but anyone new to CAM being encouraged to join in the disrespect that regulation is initiating (already a problem in the HPC) could be committing commercial suicide in the private sector. Lots of well trained therapists are likely to find that their attitude to their fellow therapists will shut commercial doors in their face.


Rustic

 

[Run Run Rudolf]

What ST said was this

1) Educational standards being raised. This is happening already. It doesnt have to be legislated for, as has been mentioned. Ofqual/QCA, the sector skills agencies and awarding bodies are all working with CNHC to raise standards. We have NOS, we have qualifications on the framework. We DO have national minimum standards in lots of the therapies, and if your training/qualification doesnt meet them, then they are below (sub) standard, that isnt me claiming this, its fact.

The definition of sub is below. If your qualifications dont meet NOS (which in my profession have been around for at least 10 years), then they are deemed to be below the nationally set standard (not set by CNHC), so, the definition would then be sub standard.

I have no idea what your qualifications are, so I cant comment on if they are below the nationally set, and recognised standards.

You are right though, the commercial market will make decisions for you, if you are a good therapist (trained or not), you should do ok, and good luck to you, IMO if someone hasnt been trained, then they are practising dishonestly, but thats up to their consciences. I know people who arent trained, and are earning a living, by having the best marketing and advertising campaigns, but offering 10 massages for £100, or buy 1 get 2 free, tells me that they dont get many returning clients, which in turn tells me that they arent any good, so yes, they may drag the poor suckers in with advertising, but then, IMO they scam them out of their hard earned money.

Yes there will be those that have a natural talent, but what about everything else that comes with treatments ie contraindications, referrals etc? They go out of the window.

PS, for anyone that has qualifications below standard, you could always apply to CNHC through the grandparenting route

 

[illersimbed]

Rustic, you do seem to think that everything I say is aimed at you and its starting to look like 1) im bullying, which im not; or 2) that you have an inferiority complex, which on the basis of your postings, you dont.

When I say 'you or your' im meaning it generally, if I was going to aim something at you, I would be specific.

All debate is healthy, but it has to be two sided.

 

[Silver Bear]

Sportstherapy,

Anyone who has (IMO your rather tactlessly expressed opinion) “sub standard" training could have made the last post I made in response to yours. I'm just the shy and retiring one who got in first.

Rustic

 

[Homer]

thanks Rustic, well let me leave you on this note,when you are critisising CNHC, you are also critisising the large amount of us therapists that give our time to them, to try to move this industry on. Professional courtesy works both ways.

You have your views on CNHC, and all regulatory bodies, and I have my opinions on substandard training courses. Neither of us are going to change our opinions.