Guest guest Posted December 16, 2001 Report Share Posted December 16, 2001 I was there and thought that the gulf separating the various opinions was more of a matter of personality and style, than content. This is because I thought that the points raised by the Speakers against SSR were errudite, well-informed, relevant, very fine points but none really seemed to totally preclude SSR. They felt that there were things wrong (and indeed sometimes very wrong) with the present formula. I thought that the panel, who spoke both for and against, were remarkably consistent in their diagnoses, just somewhat at variance in their prescriptions. There seemed no dissagreement on Saturday that (a) medicines need some control ( we are the right people to do it. Presumably MsNIMH have no problem with the existing Code of Ethics, otherwise perhaps they would not be members now. All SSR would do, would be to make it illegal to prescribe herbal medicines unless you belong to one of those various bodies, (of which NIMH is the largest) which require recognised training - and which is re-inforced by existing NIMH Rules anyway.Would this give the NIMH Committees more power ?? More work perhaps, but I fail to see that it would have any more power over the members than now. Except that is, if a member is struck off - then they will be unable to practice legally, whereas at present you can stick two fingers up and carry on anyway. I know which profession I feel safer with. The core worry seems to me to be that as post-war government had a history of making life difficult for herbalists, some members have difficulty in believing this is not a devious way of controlling the profession (loom in the ugly old pharmaceutical business !!) But ..er, is this the 21st century, the New Age of Reason or what ? Also there was obvious confusion that SSR is the same as either State Registration or being NHS employees, whereas all it means is just completely official recognition by the power of the State (and its legal arm), of what various professional bodies already do now. However, I think it was also agreed on Saturday that governments do not need to be devious to control the UK profession; in the absence of voluntary SSR they can easily enforce it under the existing Medicines Act! Because for the last thirty years UK herbalists have only been allowed to practice under an Exemption to enforceable legislation- at this current moment in time, all that is required to put us on the wrong side of the law now is no more than a Minister's signature - not even a mention in Parliament- indeed not even any warning! Having been a farmer through the current term of British government, I would feel confident in defining the concept of democracy as complete marginalisation of minority traditions as political irrelevances. Therefore, there must be a very strong argument that a Statutory instrument, confirming everything that all our various professional bodies believe, is actually a brilliant legal coup for herbalists in this Country. If only farmers had the ability to regulate their own practice instead of constant interference by govt. 'experts for a day' - ha ! Also in all reality this may be the only hope of retaining a legal practice when the next and very imminent threat occurs - which is the total harmonisation of European Medicines Law by 2005 ! Perhaps a very extreme view might be that the real debate is over the Federalisation of modern Society, which has its own dynamic but to which I would respond by arguing that it is certainly not worth sacrificing our profession over. I liked Hedley's argument that in becoming Statutory Self Regulated, we may find it increasingly difficult to remember our roots in folk medicine and must beware of becoming as overbearing and self-important as other similar professions sometimes seem to us at present! Perhaps some of 's, and also the other ideas of the voices against, should be provided for in the Statutory instrument ????? Chenery Re: SSR Debate > Dpetzsch@... wrote: > > > > Dear All > > > > Reflecting on a rather traumatic SSR Debate last Saturday, there are a few > > thoughts I feel compelled to utter - shame I wasn't able to say it at the > > time. > > These are pretty much my first glimpses of NIMH politics and already a > > certain amount of resignation (and emotional bruising) is setting in. > > > > The one thing that seemed to be completely missing from the debate was some > > kind of appreciation and gratitude for the immense day-to-day work that has > > been going into the safeguarding of our interests as practitioners and our > > cherished tools, both on a national level and in Europe. > > > > Of course, it is a lot easier to criticise than to make an effort to be > > constructive. I heard a lot of pre-election style opposition party rhetoric > > and self-centred sermons against our Council and the EHPA, with rather little > > tangible pragmatic input on how to deal with the challenges we are facing. > > > Dirk > > Dirk, > > This probably shouldn't be going on here - remember this is not an NIMH > only group (are you back yet Graham?) > > Anyway, I'm probably not the right person to be answering this, as I > wasn't able to get to the meeting, but it sounds like it was a rather > unpleasant introduction to NIMH politics for you! However, it might help > to know a bit of the recent history. > > Until pretty recently, I think most ordinary MNIMHs had hardly > questioned SSR, and so those people who were opposed presumed themselves > to be in a tiny minority, and it was all beginning to seem like a fait > accompli. It has only been over the last six months or so that voices > expressing doubt have begun to be heard more loudly. > > Therefore most of those opposed to SSR imagined there was little point > in pursuing their opposition and were resigning themselves to leaving > the NIMH, or being forced to accept the majority position. At the > moment, the " no to SSR " people are only just beginning to put their > arguments together by comparison to the pro-SSR lobby who have been > working on it for ages. And it is undeniable that the pro-SSR lobby have > the most politically sophisticated and experienced members, who will be > able to argue their case more effectively than many others could. That's > not to excuse any bad manners last Saturday - I wasn't there so I don't > know what went on. > > Of course we should respect the amount of work the pro-SSR people have > put in, but at the moment Council only have a mandate to continue > investigating it, not to take any irreversible steps. Surely it is best > to be as clear as possible about the pros and cons before we do anything > that we may regret? > > Judging from the experience of other professions who have gone down this > route there is a heck of a lot of possible pitfalls ahead of us. It > would be rather foolish to just assume that our herbal politicians > necessarily know best and to go ahead out of gratitude for their efforts > so far. This could be incredibly significant for our profession, lets > make sure that it is remembered for the right reasons. > > Yours, from a less than comfy position on the fence, and anticipating an > " interesting " AGM in April, > Robyn > > Robyn MNIMH > herbalist@... > > > List Owner > > > > Graham White, MNIMH > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2001 Report Share Posted December 19, 2001 In response to 's interpretation of the recent SSR debate and its implications: Trying to understand what is really going on in this conflict of direction.....it is a model of the conflict the wider world faces. It represents a challenge to us not only as herbalists but as people. It represents an opportunity for us to question what is really important to life, what it is we essentially need at the base of our lives to guide our actions and also what we need to discard. I found myself nodding in agreement with you, . But I would just question what you called the New Age of Reason. I think history shows clearly that reason alone, however seemingly enlightened, is not enough to anchor the tremendous energy of the mind in core life values. I think the issues of genetic modification and cloning bear this out - the reasons for can be made to seem very attractive and make the prickling conscience - which is our connection with those core life values - seem comparatively inarticulate or " silly " . Similarly, the reasons " for " SSR can, through reason alone, be made attractive, or at least compelling, enough to make us forget to consider the long-term implications for the principles by which we practice (partly expressed by the NIMH oath). My experience of the world of herbal medicine is that it is a surviving bastion of minds guided by conscience, by intuition, by " gut feelings " , by insight and by empathy, and where reason, logic, and other such ways of harnessing mental energy are used more as adjuncts. This world attracts those kinds of minds, on the whole. The wider arena that SSR would bring us into is predominantly a world driven by " profit/loss " and " risk/benefit " mind sets that is proving more and more to be devoid of core life values. Values that traditional herbalism, by its very nature, reminds us of, keeps us connected to. At the moment, due to the way we reason, we are only seeing the two horns of the dilemma - yes or no to SSR. This view made me pretty pessimistic but the debate a couple of weeks ago did contain hope amid all the revealing emotional stuff because it offerered the possibility of finding other ways forward. We all need to keep talking about this, because the answers are there. We need to keep asking questions, especially of ourselves, and bring those questions to light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.