Comments on: A register for quacks and bad science journalism.

By: Homeopathy Explained | Health & Fitness Tips

Homeopathy Explained | Health & Fitness Tips — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:50:05 +0000

[...] » A register for quacks and bad science journalism. [...]

By: Maggie

Maggie — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:20:00 +0000

@Kilgore_Elder,

I thought I made this clear here;

“Firstly, there is a complaints procedure in NSW. It was established with the new Code of Conduct for Unregistered Practitioners which was introduced in August 2008″.

My point is simply that I am not convinced introducing legislation effects the behaviour of some practitioners in the industry, based on what I have witnessed in NSW. The NSW legislation appears to have been dutifully ignored. I have no evidence to suggest a national code would be treated any differently.

FYI, there is currently a parliamentary inquiry in SA with the aim of introducing a similar Code of Conduct to NSW for alternative practitioners.

By: Kilgore_Elder

Kilgore_Elder — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:38:56 +0000

I think it would be best to explain that what you are discussing regarding the NSW code of conduct is state-based, whereas what is being broached here is national. A case of selective myopia maybe?

By: Maggie

Maggie — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:39:36 +0000

@AndyD and @Bastardsheep This is precisely my point also. My letter to the SMH about the issue was pointing out that they don’t adhere to current legislation yet claim they want yet more. This is not a case of picking and choosing whatever suits. If you genuinely care about the regulation of your industry and how it is perceived by the public you would be wise to respect current legislation, before asking for more to be introduced.

Letter following;

Dear Editor,

One has to wonder about the sincerity of naturopaths and other alternative therapists to get rid of “quacks” through the establishment of a national register (Register to hit shonks, June 14th 2009). In NSW, a Code of Conduct for Unregistered Practitioners was introduced in August 2008. Section 5 of the code states “Health practitioners must not make claims to cure certain serious illnesses”, including cancer. Section 17 of the code states “(1) A health practitioner must display a copy of each of the following documents at all premises where the health practitioner carries on his or her practice (a) this code of conduct (b) a document that gives information about the way in which clients may make a complaint to the Health Care Complaints Commission..”. In my recent visits to places of practice, I have yet to find the code displayed once, despite thorough searching. I have also been told that a $12,000 course of homeopathy can cure my cancer. I wonder why NSW Health is not cracking down on this either.
Given the lack of adherence to this already established legislation I can’t help but wonder if this new register is simply a stunt to distract us from the fact that many alternative “therapies” are as useful as placebo. By definition, complementary and alternative remedies are unproven. Alternative medicine that is proven to work is called medicine.

Dr Rachael Dunlop

By: AndyD

AndyD — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:30:28 +0000

I have to go with Bastard Sheep on this one. If you want to join the club, you have to accept the rules.

I wonder how alt-med would respond if the govt dropped the TGA altogether and allowed big pharma to introduce anything it wanted to? (I ask that rhetorically recognising that big pharma most likely own or are major shareholders in the alt-med industry anyway)

By: zayzayem

zayzayem — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:03:06 +0000

Complementary medicine with evidence is hardly “alternative” medicine, it’s actually “medicine” when it has evidence.

Also the complementary nature of it means it is supposed to be used in conjunction with general medicine.

I’d trust a naturopath over a homeopath or chiropractor any day – the natural/traditional medicines industry should be doing everything it can to self regulate itself and keep their distance from quackery.

By: Bastard Sheep

Bastard Sheep — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:31:49 +0000

AndyD, that is exactly what they’re trying to do which is why I don’t like the idea and have never liked it despite people tweeting another article on the same subject a few days earlier as though it was a good thing.
.
As I’ve said before, if supporters of Supplementary, Complimentary and Alternative Medicine want it to be treated with respect, then they need to stop crying for it to be given more and lesser rights.
.
What they SHOULD be crying for, is for the practitioners of it to hold themselves up to the same standards as conventional medicine. They should be pushing the practitioners to abide by the same advertising standards, the same approval standards (right down to the level of testing required for procedural/drug approval), the same requirements of personal, professional and ethical accountability.
.
They should NOT be calling for their own standards, their own register, their own requirements. They’re trying to do the same thing as conventional medicine, they should live up to the same system.
.
Once it does that, and ONLY once it does that, will it be deserving of any legitimacy.

By: AndyD

AndyD — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:34:43 +0000

In England the existence of a central authority for chiropractic has resulted in mass panic among practitioners due to a complaints campaign. Perhaps this is one genuinely beneficial side-effect of “legitimacy”.

But really, it does sound a bit like they’re trying to separate the real psychics from the frauds.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:45:54 +0000

In Ontario, Canada where homeopaths and naturopaths are licensed, regulation seems do do little to reign in ridiculous claims. It’s difficult to complain about a “standard of care” when the acknowledged curriculum includes mysticism and make-believe.

Luckily the government seems to be getting the idea that naturopaths are not legitimate health care professionals – they recently ignored a recommendation to give them prescribing privileges (shudder).