Report To Ministers From The Department Of Health Steering Group On The Statutory Regulation Of Practitioners Of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine, UK
Main Category: Complementary Medicine / Alternative MedicineArticle Date: 17 Jun 2008 - 3:00 PDT
email to a friend 
printer friendly 
opinions
The British Acupuncture Council (BAcC) welcomes the report out from the Department of Health Steering Group on the Regulation of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine. The report recommends the statutory regulation of acupuncture through the Health Professions Council as soon as is practicable. This has brought a successful conclusion to a process in which the BAcC has been involved for well over a decade and to which it has made a major contribution.
CEO of the British Acupuncture Council, Mike O'Farrell said; "The report highlights the need to protect the public from poorly trained practitioners. Long aware of this, the BAcC has been in the forefront of setting and promoting standards of excellence for the acupuncture profession. Our educational guidelines, safe practice standards, professional conduct procedures and accreditation body are at least the equivalent in quality of those of professions already regulated. The BAcC has been working tirelessly alongside the two other professions of herbal medicine and traditional chinese medicine to ensure that the transition to statutory regulation are based on true parity of standards".
Notes
The British Acupuncture Council (BAcC) was formed in 1995. With nearly 3,000 members we represent the largest body of professional acupuncturists in the UK and guarantee excellence in the following areas:
- Training Standards - entry to the profession is at three year undergraduate degree level training
- Safe Practice - its standards are drawn up in consultation with internationally renowned experts
Ethical Behaviour - rules are monitored and enforced with the help of experienced practitioners and independent non-acupuncturists
British Acupuncture Council
Visit our complementary medicine / alternative medicine section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/111554.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/111554.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
What Is Scientific, Professional Or Ethical About This Proposal?
posted by JNB on 30 Jun 2008 at 6:55 amCome on all you evidence based practitioners out there. This is a call to arms!
A news article in the BMJ last week quotes one Prof. Pittilo (Chair of the Steering Group) stating that “traditional health therapists [presumably the long tradition of quackery and snake oil sales is the tradition referred to here] were in huge demand, with 40% of the general public accessing one at some point”. He also considered that “…the fact that manipulation therapists currently had three regulators—one for osteopaths, one for chiropractors, and one for physiotherapists—was ‘nonsense.’” (BMJ 2008;336:1395 (21 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.a401 (published 18 June 2008). This is a bit rich. Three regulators is not the nonsense. It is the fact that two of these areas of quackery are “professionally regulated” at all that is the nonsense. Surely those legitimate areas coming under the remit of the Health Professionals Council (including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, and speech therapists apparently) should be up in arms about being bracketed with practitioners of acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and other alternative therapies such as Ayurveda, Unani Tibb, Kampo and Tibetan medicine.
In the same short article one Michael McIntyre, chairman of the European Herbal and Traditional Medicine Practitioners Association, states that “although regulation was not concerned with proving the effectiveness of alternative or complementary therapies, it would lead to better standards, as greater consistency among practitioners would make it easier for research to be conducted. Once evidence begins to emerge, all practitioners would be expected to follow the best practice…”
So - nothing about efficacy but an expectation of following best practice when it emerges. Surely if this proposal goes ahead the first principle for many of these newly regulated “healthcare professionals” should be to avail themselves of the current best evidence and cease practicing and get themselves a real job not reliant on the fears, superstitions, delusions and gullibility of others.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
