It's always about the safety, never about the efficacy. So long as the clinic is clean and the clinicians are clean and the implements are clean or the "remedies" not adulterated, then it gets a tick. If you ultimately suffer or die as a result of not getting you ailment properly checked out and "treated", it won't be the fault of the safe, clean, qualified alternative practitioner who never promised to be able to heal you of anything. Reply
How should we regulate woo though? It's a tricky question. I suppose, in the case of homeopathy, it could be argued that we don't need to. But even here, there have been cases of "remedies" sold as "homeopathic" that – it transpired – actually contained ingredients. But we can't realistically ban people from paying other people to rearrange their chakras (or whatever), so what do we do? We can, I suppose, insist that products (eg "herbal medicines") list their true ingredients and chemical breakdown and do not include dangerous levels of toxic substances at the "prescribed" dosages; but all that is only part of the problem. In the case of (say) chiropractic which employs potentially dangerous manipulations (to be fair, it should be mentioned that complications from chiropractic are mercifully rare) how do we ensure that such manipulations are carried out as safely as possible? We are forced to consider attempting to regulate training courses and exams which are largely complete nonsense – with all the absurdities that such a course of action implies. As I say, "It’s tricky"! Reply
Prosecution, not regulation. That ought to the simple message here. There are laws already in place that, if properly enforced, would protect the public from the dangers inherent in these trades. At present, they are rarely enforced. Trading Standards Offices need specialists who can deal in such issues. Regulating quacks will result in greater danger as it cloaks them in respectability that they have not earned. Reply
I used to believe that some sort of regulation – one that ensured some level of hygiene/safety/insurance – would help ensure the public were protected from the worst of the quacks, but I'm coming round to the position that there should be no statutory regulation of any of them. All that happens is that any 'official' endorsement is lauded over the unknowing public and no one is any better protected. Indeed, the public is probably less safe. As Le Canard Noir says, there are laws already to protect the public from adulterated herbal potions, misleading advertising, etc. All we need is for them to be properly enforced. Schroedinger: I'm not convinced that listing an analysis of herbal potions would help much – it may not even be possible given the variability and complexity of the source plants. Would the consumer be any the wiser as to the risks? No, proper protection of the public, not regulation of quacks is the answer, but it is tricky. Reply
I wonder what would happen if advertising any sort of efficacy, implicit, explicit or even vague beyond belief, was banned? In other words, put a "ban" on advertising health services as if they were just competing businesses. We (in Oz) don't see our local GP advertising that he can treat a vast range of illnesses (I'm not even sure if he's allowed to these days) yet alternative practitioners seem to live to advertise. They hold expos, they're in the classifieds, the Yellow Pages and all over the web making all manner of fanciful claims as to how they can "assist" your healing. An advertising ban might prove worthwhile. Reply
Regulation of Woo-Bullshit should follow the regulation of any contractual claims. If 'what was promised in return for consideration' was not delivered, then the supplier is liable.If said supplier is offering claims that are untenable, or even fraudulent, then the offer of contract is itself a prima facie actionable offense.No extra laws are required. Reply