Comments on: Homeopaths: Do You Really Want Statutory Regulation?

By: Au Revior, Paula Ross | The Quackometer

Au Revior, Paula Ross | The Quackometer — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:51:34 +0000

[...] they do talk about is their desire to achieve statutory regulation. They claim they have been in discussion with the Department of Health and that their members are right behind this. Even this strategy is now in tatters as recently the [...]

By: DavidP

DavidP — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:40:38 +0000

The GCC "has no duty to promote chiropractic" but it is still paying for 1/2 page ad's in the British Journal of General Practice

This may be misuse of funds, but I don't know what the law says about this sort of thing.

I agree with you that the SoH achieving statutory regulation would be disastrous for its members, but perhaps it is a way of avoiding criticism over refusing to join the CNHC. By engaging in protracted and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with the HPC, they can delay the criticism for years.

By: Derrik

Derrik — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:32:40 +0000

Another fascinating post.

I like the idea of the SoH creating an amusing paradox:

TO practice as a homoeopath you must be registered with the HPC. IF you practice as a homoeopath you will struck off the HPC register.

The SoH would effectively checkmate themselves and ban homoeopathy in the UK.

By: Warhelmet

Warhelmet — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:22:33 +0000

An excellent analysis.

I tend to think that the SoH's actions will cause more division in the homeopathic community and will strengthen the dislike of the SoH amongst some homeopaths.

I understand the desire for statutory regulation, but like you, I don't think that homeopaths understand the implications. One of the implications that I've not quite got my head round is what the SoH would become if registration and regulation are the purview of another body. The SoH seem very keen for this to happen - it must have some benefits for them beyond recognition of homeopathy? But what?

I think there will be a bloodbath.

By: gimpy

gimpy — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:34:16 +0000

Well, whether or not the homeopaths like it, the SoH are the most credible lay organisation (the ARH's Steve Scrutton has been doing a fabulous job maintaining homeopathy's tolerance of absurdity) and best placed to steer the lay profession into the future. If other organisations want to play a role then they will have to collaborate with the SoH, if their members want to have a say then they will have to demand their leadership negotiate with the SoH or join the SoH themselves.
Incidentally, I've noticed that one of the SoH's intellectual powerhouses, Lionel Milgrom, is no longer using RSHom in the prodigious titular arrangements following his name when sharing his 'wisdom' on the BMJ rabid response section. I wonder if he had a falling out?

By: Le Canard Noir

Le Canard Noir — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:37:36 +0000

If this is true, gimpy, then it is a high risk game. If SoH fail in their lobbying (which they stand a high risk of doing) then what little credibility they have will be shot. This will the third attempt by them to form a regulatory body (CORH, then single register, then HPA) that would have come to nothing.

The non SoH homeopaths are not members for a reason - a lot to do with the dislike of a large overseeing body and a non-homeopath being in charge. I cannot see them flocking into SoH just to have 'a say'.

Frankly, I think SoH are just still a little too enamoured by the pat on the head they got from the House of Lords ten years ago about being a good regulator. The malaria scandal, the AIDS conferences and their failure to reign in the excesses of their members (and even directors) has shattered any credibility they might have had as a professional organisation.

By: gimpy

gimpy — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:31:19 +0000

I wonder how much this can be seen as a power grab by the SoH? By seizing control of the professions debate about regulation and unilaterally applying for HPC membership they have neutered any voice the other professions have in this process. By sheer volume of numbers the SoH will be able to overide anything they don't approve of but the other organisations want. Members of the ARH, MRCH, etc might as well join the SoH if they want any say in the registration process.

By: Peterd102

Peterd102 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:48:08 +0000

I can just imagine the sheer numbers of bloggers ready, waiting for the gates to open if the Homeopaths got their own regulatory council.

*Rubs hands together in gleeful anticipation*

By: UK dietitian

UK dietitian — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:57:54 +0000

I don't want my professional status with HPC accreditation eroded by inclusion of practitioners who practice non-science.

I doubt that the 6000 UK RDs would want inclusion, either

Or members of the other 12 disciplines currently regulated by HPC

By: Picky Proofreader

Picky Proofreader — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:18:06 +0000

Excellent.

Penultimate paragraph:
"You show no sense of boundaries for what you can reasonable hope to achieve"

reasonably ?