Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:929-931 (5 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39192.475382.AD
Michael Day, freelance journalist
London
miday@f2s.com
Regulation of complementary practitioners such as acupuncturists, herbalists, and therapists to weed out the charlatans and protect the public sounds uncontroversial. But, as Michael Day reports, proposals announced in last month's white paper seem to have brought more questions than answers
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
For a long time complementary medicine was seen, by the public at least, as the gentle alternative to conventional treatment. It might not work, but at least it didn't carry the risks associated with synthetic drugs. That romantic notion was challenged more than a decade ago when nine women in previously good health developed end stage kidney disease months after receiving Chinese herbal treatment at a Belgium slimming clinic.1
But toxic herbs are not the only concern. A swift trawl through Google seems to back suggestions by the UK Health Professions Council, the regulatory body for 13 healthcare professions (box), that there are now over 100 000 counsellors and therapists practising in the United Kingdom. In February, the council's chief executive, Marc Seale, summed up the current situation: "At present you could come out of Wormwood Scrubs and set yourself up as a counsellor."
|
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.