I thought it would
be interesting for you all if you saw how Voluntary Self Regulation has evolved. I
think that the press highlighting the grave miscarriages of practices that we have seen with The Shipman inquiry and the Stone
Report really highlighted to the Government how, even with statutory regulated bodies, the public can be in danger. And these are with statutory regulated bodies so imagine what could be happening with non-regulated bodies! (At least this is how it could be viewed!) It
is worth looking up the following reports on the web – just to get a feel for how these events have influenced regulation,
either statutory or voluntary. The general feeling is that it is only a matter
of time before any therapy will all into the statutory regulation category. Whether this is feasible with the cost of implementing
statutory regulation and the policing of it – well that’s open for debate.
As I’ve mentioned before, whilst attending a workshop held by PFIH all I can remember of the day is the feeling
I had that VSR was being slotted into statutory regulation model.
Progress of CAM Regulation
Pre
1987 Professional
Associations only
1987 The
BCMA (http://www.bcma.co.uk/)
1993 Prince’s
Foundation for Integrated Health
1996 The
Lannoye Report
1997 University
of Exeter report ‘The Organisation of CAM’
1997
Prince of Wales Foundation for Integrated Health report ‘Integrated Healthcare, a Way Forward for the Next Five
Years’
1999
The 1999 Health Act (v)
2000
2nd report to DoH by University of Exeter
2000
Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to The House of Lords
2001
The Government Response to the Report
2002 - 2005 The Shipman Inquiry
2005
The Stone Report
2007
PFIH - Federal Working Group
2007
GRCCT started
2008
PFIH – NHC to be launched
I have notified you all as to the RRWG’s decision to withdraw from the PFIH format for The Federal approach
to the registration of therapies. It was felt that the PFIH was lumping all the
CAM therapies together with one model for all, with no allowance for the ‘differences’ between each therapy. They were to be ‘in control’ with the individual therapies having no ‘power’
at all to influence what was going to happen to their therapy. It wasn’t
only Reiki that felt that way and Aromatherapy, Reflexology and Massage withdrew too. Since that decision was taken the RWG
had to decide the best way forward for Reiki. At a meeting last week three presentations
were given
i)
By the RRWG – focusing on the possibility of Reiki self regulating Reiki.
It soon became very clear as to the complexities of this prospect, and the costs that would be incurred. One big stumbling block also was the fact that many practitioners also have other therapies that they practice
so if all these therapies went the same way as Reiki imagine the costs of registering with each one!
ii)
BCMA – British Complementary Medicine Association. Here the BCMA
suggested that they were well situated handle the regulation side and the register.
iii) GRCCT
– The newly formed General Council for Complementary Therapies.
There,
I think that’s it in a nut shell. The RRWG are meeting again in early February. Personally I would love to have a single register for Reiki, because it is so special,
but in practicality, well....... many of my students are multi-disciplined and would this be the best for them? The Prince of Wales trust should have its NHC in April and it will e interesting to see how they cover CAM. I can see there will be a number of registers in place, the PFIH; NHSTA; BCMA and the GRCCT are already well in the running. I don’t
know if all the registers will be coming to each individual therapy board, eg the RRWG, to validity practitioners/therapist
credentials – especially as it is all voluntary.
So,
the National Occupational Standards for Reiki are already in place. The RRWG
have almost finished a Core Curriculum which is based on the NOS and will act as a basis for the minimum individual requirements
needed to be perceived as a ‘professional practitioner’. This
document should form the basis for acceptance into the register, whether it be the GRCCT, BCMA or any other organisation.
As
an aside it is very interesting to do web searches on the reports written above - especially the Lannoys report .........
'i)
Lannoye report (taken from http://www.atvsrg.org.uk/regulation.htm)
………..In 1996 Paul Lannoye, a member of the European Parliament, presented a report on the status
of non-conventional medicine to the European Parliament which recommended that only complementary practitioners with a university
degree or diploma should be allowed professional autonomy and the right to diagnose, i.e. that training of such practitioners
should be as rigorous as for those practising mainstream western medicine……………..'
Jeanne
Long
Jan
08
