Is registration of complementary and alternative medicine a red herring?

Myksyk

What happens when you 'register' questionable or useless therapies? I suspect what you get is a veneer of repsectability in the form of government endorsement over a shoddy or non-existent evidence base. You get an easier pig in a poke to sell to the unsuspecting because they are 'registered' therapies (not proven, just registered). Registration is not a substitute for evidence although it may well be presented as if it was. The recent process of registering all sorts of alternative practices has, much to the delight of the various schools and practitioners of these therapies, simply by-passed the rather important question of whether the therapies have any evidence to support them in the first place.

pH

I agree, when challenged the CAM folks will counter that they are 'registered' as if that is a form of validation.

However, another group people that the government recently required to be registered are sex-offenders, so that puts the CAMers in appropriate company.

I'm sorry if anyone finds that overly harsh, but those who trick desperate, grieving, sick or dying people out of their savings for treatments and services that don't work are the lowest of the low in my opnion.

davros

There should be a register for psychics too. It must be awful for the genuine clairvoyants to have charlatans out for a quick buck giving the whole profession a bad name. Astrologers, water diviners, three card monte operators, pyramid schemers... they must all have registers! Can we press the government for parity of esteem for all these beleaguered groups, now that the first step has been taken?

torinoblue

They should be registered, because if they are robbing ordinary people of their money, there is no doubt they will rob the goverment (ie the taxpayers) of it by hiding their earnings.

I suspect there are a few astrologers raking it in and not declaring it. I heard an Easons cashier saying to her colleague she had a €50 10 minute session. You could tell by her colleagues reaction(silence) she was dumbfounded. €50 for 10 minutes of talking ****.

A business where you don't need to buy any materials or noone expects a receipt and have no qualifications(though there is a pseudoscience behind astrology), and you can charge basically for nothing, should be registered to avoid tax evasion.

Jackie laughlin

Registration shouldn't be discussed. Some are chancers. Others are fools who can't hack education or training in a real discipline. All would like the opportunity to put "reg." after their names and they would have no problem keeping accounts and paying taxes. Many of these Reiki "practitioners" etc. want an easily obtained "qualification" and a way of pretending that they are in a caring profession. They are in turn exploited by the healing tutor scam. The discussion must focus on criminalising them.

torinoblue

The discussion must focus on criminalising them.

No, complete waste of taxpayer money, people have to be allowed to be stupid, just make sure the government gets the correct tax.

The war on drugs is wasting enough resources.

pH

torinoblue wrote:

The war on drugs is wasting enough resources.

At least your local dealer's drugs actually work!

Jackie laughlin

torinoblue wrote:

people have to be allowed to be stupid

You can't be serious. Seat belts? Smoking? Crash helmets? Fraud? Money lenders?

robindch

> people have to be allowed to be stupid,

Not sure that this unfortunate man's widow would agree with you:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=242197

Yossie

Registration would be counter-productive, in my view.

The obvious group who are already "registered" and are deemed "legitimate" are the different religions. History has meant that they were allowed legitimation in the public space which has resulted in the propagation of their mumbo-jumbo into all areas of our state and society; which is now proving difficult to reverse. Like with the religions, registration would lead to a grab for political power - influencing perhaps grant/research funding, health spending etc., not to mention hampering the rational scientific perspective.

stevenmu

If done properly I think registration would be a great idea, altough I think some form of guild or trade association would be more appropriate than enforced government registration. There are many CAMers out there who've dedicated their lives to what they practice and they do it with the best of intentions, genuinely believing they're helping people out. Then there are those who see the chance to make a quick buck out of vulnerable people.

Registration would be a chance to seperate the two. It would also allow certain standards to be enforced, for example registered CAMers could be obliged to advise people to consult with a GP and certainly to never tell someone to not go to their GP as happened in the case robindch linked above.

I agree it shouldn't be used to give a veneer of respectability to CAM, people should decide for themselves if they think it's a waste of time or not, not be told by the government. But if (and when) people do decide they want to try CAM, it makes sense that there'd be some way they could at least try to find genuine practitioners.

Jackie laughlin

I know a Reiki "Master" who qualified in a few weeks. She was very unhappy and a "school" exploited her. Her life now has "meaning". She really does believe that she is now helping people. She is not as extreme as the Reiki operator advertising in a local shop that she can "treat" cancer! I know another woman who heats stones in her oven and places them on her "patients".

It doesn't offend notions of freedom if the state protects vulnerable people. We all have times of crisis when we might clutch at any straw. Moreover, busy people expect the state to sort wheat from chaff.

stevenmu

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It doesn't offend notions of freedom if the state protects vulnerable people. We all have times of crisis when we might clutch at any straw. Moreover, busy people expect the state to sort wheat from chaff.

What you would call protecting vulnerable people, I would call restricting my freedom of choice. You may think it's a waste of time and money, but as far as I'm concerned neither the government, nor anyone else, has any right to prevent me wasting my time and money as I see fit.

pH

stevenmu wrote:

What you would call protecting vulnerable people, I would call restricting my freedom of choice. You may think it's a waste of time and money, but as far as I'm concerned neither the government, nor anyone else, has any right to prevent me wasting my time and money as I see fit.

So all this modern consumer legislation is infringing on your civil rights? Anyone should be free to sell anything? (whether it works or does what it says on the tin does not matter!) and as the saying goes "caveat emptor".

There are good reasons why charlatans and dishonest business practices are discouraged in any society.

The thing about CAM is that by it's definition it targets the weak and vulnerable. These people make their money tricking sick and dying people into paying money for cures which do not work. Not that we don't understand how they work, they plain and simple don't work.

So now the rest of the weaker members in society can join children as people you feel can be exploited in the name of either money or 'freedom of belief'.

Jackie laughlin

Of course the state cannot protect someone who is wilfully stupid but a mixture of outright prohibitions and dissemination of information would be a service to the majority of people who want to be prudent.

stevenmu

pH wrote:

So all this modern consumer legislation is infringing on your civil rights? Anyone should be free to sell anything? (whether it works or does what it says on the tin does not matter!) and as the saying goes "caveat emptor".If the seller believes that what they're selling is ok,

There are good reasons why charlatans and dishonest business practices are discouraged in any society.

The thing about CAM is that by it's definition it targets the weak and vulnerable. These people make their money tricking sick and dying people into paying money for cures which do not work. Not that we don't understand how they work, they plain and simple don't work.

You're assuming that everyone involved in CAM is a deliberate and conciencious fraudster. That's patently not true. Many CAMers genuinely believe that they are helping their patients, and similarly many patients genuinely believe it works. I think you'll also find that most CAMers don't charge for 'a cure' they charge for their time and advice. They don't hide what it is they do, they offer very specific services which people are free to decide if they want to avail of or not.

pH wrote:

So now the rest of the weaker members in society can join children as people you feel can be exploited in the name of either money or 'freedom of belief'.

I fail to see anywhere in that thread that I expressed any kind of belief that children can be exploited. I also fail to see any indication of a child being exploited. Either you linked the wrong thread or you're jumping to highly emotive conclusions without any basis.

Jackie Laughlin wrote:

Of course the state cannot protect someone who is wilfully stupid but a mixture of outright prohibitions and dissemination of information would be a service to the majority of people who want to be prudent.

I would expect anyone who wants to be prudent to be capable or researching available information, and perhaps consulting with their GP, before making a choice for themselves to use alternative therapies or not.

pH

stevenmu wrote:

You're assuming that everyone involved in CAM is a deliberate and conciencious fraudster. That's patently not true.

I fail to see how this is 'patently' not true, perhaps you know a way to tell the deliberate fraudsters from the merely misguided.

Many CAMers genuinely believe that they are helping their patients, and similarly many patients genuinely believe it works. I think you'll also find that most CAMers don't charge for 'a cure' they charge for their time and advice. They don't hide what it is they do, they offer very specific services which people are free to decide if they want to avail of or not.

That's patently untrue - they all in their own devious ways offer 'cures' for minor or major ailiments. It's all money up front too.

Even if 5% are genuine (not that it actually works merely they're not just dishonest fraudsters) it still equates to the same thing, people are paying money for worthless cures and being given false hope. In many CAM 'patients' are not receiving proper/worthwhile medical attention because they are encouraged to believe that allopathic medicine is somehow 'chemical based', in the pockets of BigPharma, and anyways doctors don't know it all you know ...

I would expect anyone who wants to be prudent to be capable or researching available information, and perhaps consulting with their GP, before making a choice for themselves to use alternative therapies or not.

Here's the thing - we accept that clever and dishonest people can trick others out of their money in many areas, false medical cures is just one of such are. This will give you a laugh, there's a group of nasty tricksters who pretend they can speak to the dead, and take money from grieving relatives. I'm not sure which is worse, exploiting the sick or the bereaved.

There is no such thing as alternative medicine, there are medical interventions which can be shown to work, and then there's all this quackery that no independent test can distinguish from a placebo.

Jackie laughlin

I more or less agree that we rely on state services to make judgements and both protect us from and warn us about fraudsters. That reliance doesn't lessen freedom; it facilitates it.

I say "more or less" because I've met seriously deluded people who really do think that they are doing good and they don't ask for money. I'm thinking here of a friend whose sister was dying. She was approached by a "healer" who offered help. My friend was of course desperate. The "healer" formed an international "healing circle" and they "sent healing". The woman died. The "healer" wouldn't admit to any failure. The circle "eased the dying woman's passing over".This vile person continues with her self-serving cruelty.

pH

Just to compare and contrast, take Feng Shui. Now you're not going to hear me getting upset about this, as the people it targets are not in any sense vulnerable. It's just as bogus as any of these CAM cures, but it's not targeting vulnerable people.

If you want to waste your money on Feng Shui'ing your living room then fine, as people have said you have the right to spend your money on whatever you want, and if that involves wasting it then that's OK too.

Pretending to cure disease, and making money from the suffering of others is a particularly odious way to make a living.

Pretending that your method of interior design somehow cleanses a house of bad energy is just silly.

Jackie laughlin

It's OK to waste your money as long as you are aware that you are wasting it. If not, you've been tricked just as surely as when the guy arrives to clean your gutters and then lies that you need replacements.

Dg101

Perhaps they should give them registration but require them to put up a warning sign, you know, like on cigarette packs? Something along the lines of prolonged use of <insert alternative medicine here> may cause drained bank accounts and false hope.

It's disgusting to see what some of the practioners of alternative medicine will do to make some cash, such as the stories of promises to cure cancer and the like but then, alternative medicine does have some potential benefits in minor illness. After all, the placebo effect is a recognised medical phenomenon and can account for up to 30% of the effect of a drug. So almost unintentionally some of the alternative medicines can do some good. Nothing like what you hear promised though.

robindch

hmm... at a loose end on Grafton Street for five minutes a couple of days ago, I dropped into the homeopathic shop on Duke street (opposite the Duke pub) and asked about homeopathic vaccines. I was told that the stuff on sale would probably have to be recommended by a homeopathic practitioner, but that it's completely effective and provides full protection. On asking her what regulatory body had approved the vaccines for use, the woman at the counter then backtracked and said that I might need to do it in conjunction with a visit to the tropical medical place around the corner on south anne street, but not to worry, the homeopathic stuff was still good.

I wonder how many people have swallowed this mendacious cr@p and headed off to the tropics with an expensive bottle of water thinking that it will protect them against malaria?

The suggestion of a warning is good. Something like "This product is unapproved and has not been found effective for any medical condition" in a black and white box, like on the ciggie packs, and leave it at that.

Dg101

That's the danger, that people put too much faith in alternative medicine and decide not to bother with scientifically validated treatments. Have to rely on people's own judgement really, but they should be warned so that shopkeepers and practitioners can't pull that kind of stunt and end up killing people.

pH

The two topics of placebo and malaria have serendipitously come up together, here's a question - would you expect to see a placebo effect with an anti-malarial treatment?

I can understand the placebo when the effect in mainly in the mind (pain, depression, anxiety etc).

I can also accept that for things caused mainly by our bodies to ourselves (like rashes, allergic reactions) a reduction in stress (taking the placebo you think you're cured and therefore less stressed) could reduce the symptoms.

However I'm extremely skeptical of any placebo effect in something like an anti-malarial.

That said placebo does mean "I will please" and there must be some of this effect 'going the other way'.

Even if the patient does not feel any better, because of their feelings for the doctor there must be a temptation to report some increase in wellbeing - to keep him happy so to speak.

Also:
Due to the difficulty in ascribing causation, many phenomena overlap with — and can thus mistakenly be included in — statistics on the placebo effect.

• Natural termination of the disease process.
• Cyclical presentation of the disease.
• Errant diagnosis or prognosis.
• Temporary improvement confused with cure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect

Dg101

As a matter of fact, I brought up the placebo effect with respect to the potential uses of alternative medicines on "minor illness". Which would be, as you suggest, rashes or allergic reactions or possibly headaches and the like. I would not consider malaria a minor illness.

In fact, I believe I was suggesting that it is dangerous for placebos such as alternative medicines to be used as an anti-malarial course of treatment and that warning signs would help with cutting out the sinister practice of alternative medical practitioners claiming they can treat serious illnesses.