CNHC Safety -epetition response (cop out!)

**Dubious Dick** · 12th June 2009, 10:47 AM

Friday 12 June 2009 CNHCsafety - epetition response

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to require evicence of basic efficacy and safety for licencing by the CNHC.”
Details of Petition:
“The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) issues approval certificates to Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine practitioners, but this approval is currently independent of actual evidence of efficacy or safety. It is likely that practitioners will use CNHC approval to imply efficacy and safety, even though it promises no such thing. We, the undersigned, therefore petition that the CNHC requirements be tightened to include evidence of efficacy and safety.”

· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response

The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) does not promote the efficacy of disciplines practised by its registrants. The aim of the CNHC is protection of the public. Registration means that the practitioner has met certain entry standards (in terms of having an accredited qualification or relevant experience) and that they subscribe to a set of professional standards. The public will have the reassurance that the practitioner they choose meets these standards and will be subject to fitness to practise procedures should they behave inappropriately.
Regulation, whether statutory or voluntary, is about protecting the public. For this reason, the Government fully supports the work of the CNHC. If patients choose to use complementary or alternative therapy, the Government’s advice is to choose a practitioner registered with a reputable voluntary registration body such as the CNHC.

**Trinoc** · 12th June 2009, 10:52 AM

So, if I set up a correspondence course on woology and a regulatory board to approve graduate woologists, then the CNHC will approve woologists to practice with the public safe in the knowledge that they have all graduated from my college, even if what they do has no basis in reality at all ...

(A virtual pint to the first person who knows what woology actually is ...)

**Croydon Bob** · 12th June 2009, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Trinoc

(A virtual pint to the first person who knows what woology actually is ...)

Knitting?

**DrS** · 12th June 2009, 10:59 AM

Shearing?

Beaten by Bob this time

**Trinoc** · 12th June 2009, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Croydon Bob

Knitting?

(Damn! It would be Bob - I'll probably have to buy him a real pint next time we meet!)

http://www.methuen.co.uk/titles.php/itemcode/545

**skbuncks** · 12th June 2009, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Trinoc

(A virtual pint to the first person who knows what woology actually is ...)

woo-log-y: The study of a wooster's fecal matter

skb

**Trinoc** · 12th June 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by skbuncks

woo-log-y: The study of a wooster's fecal matter

Gillian McKeith in Star Trek ... reading the captain's log ... ?

**Croydon Bob** · 12th June 2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Trinoc

(Damn! It would be Bob - I'll probably have to buy him a real pint next time we meet!)

http://www.methuen.co.uk/titles.php/itemcode/545

I was, of course, joking. I didn't think it really was the answer!

And don't worry, I know that you never get a round in. Unlike that nice bloke Sid.

**skbuncks** · 12th June 2009, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Dubious Dick

Friday 12 June 2009 CNHCsafety - epetition response

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to require evicence of basic efficacy and safety for licencing by the CNHC.”
Details of Petition:
“The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) issues approval certificates to Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicine practitioners, but this approval is currently independent of actual evidence of efficacy or safety. It is likely that practitioners will use CNHC approval to imply efficacy and safety, even though it promises no such thing. We, the undersigned, therefore petition that the CNHC requirements be tightened to include evidence of efficacy and safety.”

· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response

The Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC) does not promote the efficacy of disciplines practised by its registrants. The aim of the CNHC is protection of the public. Registration means that the practitioner has met certain entry standards (in terms of having an accredited qualification or relevant experience) and that they subscribe to a set of professional standards. The public will have the reassurance that the practitioner they choose meets these standards and will be subject to fitness to practise procedures should they behave inappropriately.
Regulation, whether statutory or voluntary, is about protecting the public. For this reason, the Government fully supports the work of the CNHC. If patients choose to use complementary or alternative therapy, the Government’s advice is to choose a practitioner registered with a reputable voluntary registration body such as the CNHC.

How exactly does the promotion of practises with no evidence of efficacy or safety protect the public? Surely it puts the public at harm by diverting them from healthcare which actually works. Have the government not heard of baby Gloria?

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4019

skb

**Trinoc** · 12th June 2009, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Croydon Bob

I was, of course, joking. I didn't think it really was the answer!

And don't worry, I know that you never get a round in. Unlike that nice bloke Sid.

Ha! And to think you declined the pint I offered last time!

(Where is Sid? He doesn't even post the SitP meetings in here any more.)