Re: advertising and herbalists

[Guest guest]

Dear and Jean

You need to read the HPC website closely. What it actually says is that

there are 13 regulators. the 'we' is a collective 'we' and does not

refer to the HPC but to all the regulators. The bit that says we can

prosecute them refers to the collective we i.e. it would be the

individual regulator who prosecuted, not the HPC. You would not have the

HPC prosecuting someone calling themselves a dentist.

This is the actually wording but I have highlighted the bits that seem

to be confusing you.best wishes

PS the link is in 's email.

Other health regulators

There are 13 organisations in the UK known as health and social care

regulators. We each oversee the health and social care professions by

regulating individual professionals.

We were set up to protect the public so that whenever you see a health

or social care professional, you can be sure they meet our standards.

Who is registered? Anyone from one of the professions listed below must

register with the relevant regulator. If they are not, then they are

breaking the law and we can prosecute them. Our registers are made up of

only those professionals who have demonstrated that they have met our

standards.

[Guest guest]

Dear

Please see Pittillo report plus National professional standards.

atb

[Guest guest]

Just ring them up and ask them they are quite happy to tell you so. Maybe

you could say you are recording the call for training and monitoring

purposes? Everybody else does! Perhaps the whole list should get them on a

conference call then we can all hear it at the same time!

Lorraine

>

>

> Hi ,

>

> Has the ASA got anything in writing, on its

> website, about its interpretation of who they

> consider to be a " health professional " , or point

> to a case where they ruled that someone who is

> not regulated by a statutory regulator could not

> use the words diagnose/diagnosis in their marketing material?

>

> And if so, shouldn't the second part of Rule 12.2 of the Cap Code be

> rewritten?

> Currently this rule states:

>

>

> 12.2

> Marketers must not discourage essential treatment

> for conditions for which medical supervision

> should be sought. For example, they must not

> offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or

> treatment for such conditions unless that advice,

> diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the

> supervision of a suitably qualified health

> professional. Accurate and responsible general

> information about such conditions may, however, be offered. (See rule

> 12.11.)

>

>

> Health professionals will be deemed suitably

> qualified only if they can provide suitable

> credentials; for example, evidence of: relevant

> professional expertise or qualifications; systems

> for regular review of members’ skills and

> competencies and suitable professional indemnity

> insurance covering all services provided;

> accreditation by a professional or regulatory

> body that has systems for dealing with complaints

> and taking disciplinary action and has

> registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Krystyna

>

>

> At 23:30 09/05/2011, you wrote:

> >

> >

> >Hi ,I think that's the problem - ASA

> >recognizes only the medical or professional

> >bodies that belong to HPC (this is the exisitng

> >official recognition, not aspiring). Very narrow

> >interpretation of the actual CAP rules - I agree.

> >

> >

> >

>

> >Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

> >To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

>

> >Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

> >

> >Â

> >

> >Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

> >

> >place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

> >

> >difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

> >

> >body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

> >

> >No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

> >

> >Presume you refer to the bit:

> >

> > " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

> >

> >for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

> >

> >supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

> >

> >(e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

> >

> >health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

> >

> >about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

> >

> >The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

> >

> >or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

> >

> >regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

> >

> >then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

> >

> >with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

> >

> >Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

> >

> >addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

> >

> >rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

> >

> >dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

> >

> >pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

> >

> >atb

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Krystyna,

No, they don't - you are absolutely right, but this is the reply I got from them

(ie from CopyAdvice team) regarding this particular issue: " Regarding suitably

qualified, the ASA has taken the approach that a

suitably qualified healthcare professional is one regulated by statute and/ or

registered with the Health Professionals Council.  It would be up to the

ASA council to determine whether or not a professional outside these parameters

would fall into the category of suitably qualified.  Currently, it would

appear that this would not apply to members of the CPP. " I am not a member of

NIMH any more, so I asked as a CPP member - I do not think it would make any

difference, but who knows. So, yes there is room for interpretation, but my gut

feel is that ASA would take a negative/conservative approach. Best wishes

>

>

>Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

>Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

>

>Â

>

>Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

>

>place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

>

>difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

>

>body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

>

>No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

>

>Presume you refer to the bit:

>

> " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

>

>for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

>

>supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

>

>(e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

>

>health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

>

>about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

>

>The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

>

>or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

>

>regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

>

>then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

>

>with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

>

>Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

>

>addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

>

>rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

>

>dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

>

>pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

>

>atb

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lorraine,It seems that CAP/ASA found it acceptable within the context,

perhaps " diagnosis offered " is different from " diagnosis made " ? I'm sure that

there is a degree of randomness in their decisions, but if they found it

acceptable, I would not argue...All the best

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>

> > To: ukherbal-list

>

> > Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 12:02

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Hi

>

> >

>

> > If you have been told that, then I would argue that you have been given

inaccurate information/advice.

>

> >

>

> > As says that is wrong - certainly wrong because that is not what they

publish.

>

> >

>

> > What the guidance on the ASA website actually says is:

>

> >

>

> > " Marketers should not discourage essential treatment. They should not offer

specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for serious or prolonged

conditions unless it is conducted under the supervision of a doctor or other

suitably qualified health professional (e.g. one subject to regulation by a

statutory or recognised medical or health profession body). Accurate and

responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered. "

>

> >

>

> > There is no mention of the HPC.

>

> >

>

> > It does say 'recognised health profession' but that is not the same as the

HPC (obviously).

>

> >

>

> > So if you have been given different advice then that is not good - not

following their own codes and guidance, in my opinion. Surely, the body

responsible for ensuring advertising meets standards, must ensure it operates

within its own published material. If they mean HPC, then they have to say HPC.

>

> >

>

> > Also answer depends on the question one may put to them - there are ways to

phrase questions - which of course you know (sorry if that sounds a bit

patronising - blame email). If you simply ask them to review your copy, then

they comment if they see anything they might consider potentially problematic.

But if you ask them - can I call myself a healthcare professional, then they are

likely to reply with - e.g. only doctors can do that.

>

> >

>

> > In part it is ignorance on their part - not knowing what herbalists do etc

etc.

>

> >

>

> > But mainly, I think, it is because individuals (no disrespect intended) are

dealt with by basic operatives who can't make decisions, and will be ultra

careful in the advice they give.

>

> >

>

> > Same thing over " diagnosis " . If you ask them, can I say I diagnose, they

will most likely say no. But in fact - do they understand what diagnosis is?

>

> >

>

> > The question of whether or not they have deemed herbalists to fall under the

category of healthcare professionals or not, is something to take up with them

(but at a different level).

>

> >

>

> > On what basis have they made that decision? by what authority? etc etc. If

the DoH considers herbalists healthcare pros, then who are the ASA to argue.

>

> >

>

> > As said, they are not a regulator. So when did they appoint themselves

arbiter of who is and who is not a healthcare professional?

>

> >

>

> > However, I would suggest that those discussions take place at a higher level

than just the copy advice team, where, no disrespect intended, but it is likely

you have been dealing with a low level operative.

>

> >

>

> > If you have received some advice from them, it would be helpful to pass it

on to the councils of whatever PA (all of them) you belong to. Within NIMH we've

been asking members to contact Council if they receive any complaints as a

result of e.g Nightingale, and I know that other PAs such as the RCHM is doing

the same. If anyone receives a complaint, then the PA can support them. but

meanwhile it would be interesting to see what advice is being given to

individuals - and if it differs to anything they have given to e.g NIMH Council.

>

> >

>

> > all the best

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Well I don't know what you asked and how you asked it! I sent the leaflet and

asked about that. I was told that for the purposes of the ASA CAP we would not

be considered healthcare professionals, therefore that would make the statement

in breach.

I still have more to ask them,

Lorraine

Lorraine Hodgkinson MNIMH MRCHM

HERBS AND HELPERS

6, Butts Fold, Cockermouth,

Cumbria, CA13 9HY. UK.

Tel: +44 (0) 1900 826392

Mobile: 07761 489838 (O2)

www.herbalmedicineuk.com

> Hi Lorraine,It seems that CAP/ASA found it acceptable within the context,

perhaps " diagnosis offered " is different from " diagnosis made " ? I'm sure that

there is a degree of randomness in their decisions, but if they found it

acceptable, I would not argue...All the best

>

>

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>

> >

>

> > > To: ukherbal-list

>

> >

>

> > > Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 12:02

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Hi

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > If you have been told that, then I would argue that you have been given

inaccurate information/advice.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > As says that is wrong - certainly wrong because that is not what they

publish.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > What the guidance on the ASA website actually says is:

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > " Marketers should not discourage essential treatment. They should not

offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment for serious or prolonged

conditions unless it is conducted under the supervision of a doctor or other

suitably qualified health professional (e.g. one subject to regulation by a

statutory or recognised medical or health profession body). Accurate and

responsible general information about such conditions may, however, be offered. "

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > There is no mention of the HPC.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > It does say 'recognised health profession' but that is not the same as the

HPC (obviously).

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > So if you have been given different advice then that is not good - not

following their own codes and guidance, in my opinion. Surely, the body

responsible for ensuring advertising meets standards, must ensure it operates

within its own published material. If they mean HPC, then they have to say HPC.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Also answer depends on the question one may put to them - there are ways

to phrase questions - which of course you know (sorry if that sounds a bit

patronising - blame email). If you simply ask them to review your copy, then

they comment if they see anything they might consider potentially problematic.

But if you ask them - can I call myself a healthcare professional, then they are

likely to reply with - e.g. only doctors can do that.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > In part it is ignorance on their part - not knowing what herbalists do etc

etc.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > But mainly, I think, it is because individuals (no disrespect intended)

are dealt with by basic operatives who can't make decisions, and will be ultra

careful in the advice they give.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > Same thing over " diagnosis " . If you ask them, can I say I diagnose, they

will most likely say no. But in fact - do they understand what diagnosis is?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > The question of whether or not they have deemed herbalists to fall under

the category of healthcare professionals or not, is something to take up with

them (but at a different level).

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > On what basis have they made that decision? by what authority? etc etc. If

the DoH considers herbalists healthcare pros, then who are the ASA to argue.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > As said, they are not a regulator. So when did they appoint

themselves arbiter of who is and who is not a healthcare professional?

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > However, I would suggest that those discussions take place at a higher

level than just the copy advice team, where, no disrespect intended, but it is

likely you have been dealing with a low level operative.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > If you have received some advice from them, it would be helpful to pass it

on to the councils of whatever PA (all of them) you belong to. Within NIMH we've

been asking members to contact Council if they receive any complaints as a

result of e.g Nightingale, and I know that other PAs such as the RCHM is doing

the same. If anyone receives a complaint, then the PA can support them. but

meanwhile it would be interesting to see what advice is being given to

individuals - and if it differs to anything they have given to e.g NIMH Council.

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > > all the best

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > >

[Guest guest]

The practise of herbal medicine (with all that entails by the virtues of

tradition, education and practice) is currently recognised under the

exemption to the Medicines Act Section 12 (1). The government has recognised

that this needs improving (by SR) and has announced that the process is now

underway.

The ASA " CopyAdvice Team " may not appreciate the implications of all this;

but that is no excuse and it needs to get itself up to speed.

If ASA seems to be giving out information that is at variance with the

general thrust of government intention, perhaps it could be encouraged to

" get real " , from the correct direction?

>

>

> Hi Krystyna,

> No, they don't - you are absolutely right, but this is the reply I got from

> them (ie from CopyAdvice team) regarding this particular issue: " Regarding

> suitably qualified, the ASA has taken the approach that a

> suitably qualified healthcare professional is one regulated by statute and/

> or

> registered with the Health Professionals Council. It would be up to the

> ASA council to determine whether or not a professional outside these

> parameters

> would fall into the category of suitably qualified. Currently, it would

> appear that this would not apply to members of the CPP. " I am not a member

> of NIMH any more, so I asked as a CPP member - I do not think it would make

> any difference, but who knows. So, yes there is room for interpretation, but

> my gut feel is that ASA would take a negative/conservative approach. Best

> wishes

>

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>

> >To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

>

> >Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

>

> >

>

> >Â

>

> >

>

> >Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

>

> >

>

> >place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

>

> >

>

> >difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

>

> >

>

> >body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

>

> >

>

> >No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

>

> >

>

> >Presume you refer to the bit:

>

> >

>

> > " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

>

> >

>

> >for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

>

> >

>

> >supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

>

> >

>

> >(e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

>

> >

>

> >health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

>

> >

>

> >about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

>

> >

>

> >The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

>

> >

>

> >or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

>

> >

>

> >regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

>

> >

>

> >then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

>

> >

>

> >with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

>

> >

>

> >Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

>

> >

>

> >addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

>

> >

>

> >rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

>

> >

>

> >dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

>

> >

>

> >pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

>

> >

>

> >atb

>

> >

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Well I only asked because I needed a definitive answer, which had been lacking

from previous enquiries.

I remain concerned that others choose to use the leaflet and that I may be

required to answer a member of the public on the matter.

I think the best I can do in this situation is to ask them to take it up with

the ASA. Only by them ruling on the matter will it be resolved. Although it

seems clear cut that the wording is in breach, according to their definition of

a healthcare professional.

It would be better if this had been changed to avoid controversy and confusion

in the first place.

Lorraine

Lorraine Hodgkinson MNIMH MRCHM

HERBS AND HELPERS

6, Butts Fold, Cockermouth,

Cumbria, CA13 9HY. UK.

Tel: +44 (0) 1900 826392

Mobile: 07761 489838 (O2)

www.herbalmedicineuk.com

> The practise of herbal medicine (with all that entails by the virtues of

> tradition, education and practice) is currently recognised under the

> exemption to the Medicines Act Section 12 (1). The government has recognised

> that this needs improving (by SR) and has announced that the process is now

> underway.

> The ASA " CopyAdvice Team " may not appreciate the implications of all this;

> but that is no excuse and it needs to get itself up to speed.

> If ASA seems to be giving out information that is at variance with the

> general thrust of government intention, perhaps it could be encouraged to

> " get real " , from the correct direction?

>

>

>

>

>

>>

>>

>> Hi Krystyna,

>> No, they don't - you are absolutely right, but this is the reply I got from

>> them (ie from CopyAdvice team) regarding this particular issue: " Regarding

>> suitably qualified, the ASA has taken the approach that a

>> suitably qualified healthcare professional is one regulated by statute and/

>> or

>> registered with the Health Professionals Council. It would be up to the

>> ASA council to determine whether or not a professional outside these

>> parameters

>> would fall into the category of suitably qualified. Currently, it would

>> appear that this would not apply to members of the CPP. " I am not a member

>> of NIMH any more, so I asked as a CPP member - I do not think it would make

>> any difference, but who knows. So, yes there is room for interpretation, but

>> my gut feel is that ASA would take a negative/conservative approach. Best

>> wishes

>>

>>

>>>

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>>

>>> To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

>>

>>> Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Â

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

>>

>>>

>>

>>> place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

>>

>>>

>>

>>> difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

>>

>>>

>>

>>> body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Presume you refer to the bit:

>>

>>>

>>

>>> " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

>>

>>>

>>

>>> for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

>>

>>>

>>

>>> supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

>>

>>>

>>

>>> (e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

>>

>>>

>>

>>> health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

>>

>>>

>>

>>> about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

>>

>>>

>>

>>> The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

>>

>>>

>>

>>> or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

>>

>>>

>>

>>> regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

>>

>>>

>>

>>> then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

>>

>>>

>>

>>> with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

>>

>>>

>>

>>> addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

>>

>>>

>>

>>> rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

>>

>>>

>>

>>> dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

>>

>>>

>>

>>> pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

>>

>>>

>>

>>> atb

>>

>>>

>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

It is not only by them ruling on the matter.....they certainly won't want to

show their confusion or inconsistency to a judge, for example. It wouldn't

get to that but they ought to be put straight now as that will all help at

the SR stage.

On 11 May 2011 07:41, " Herbs and Helpers "

wrote:

> Well I only asked because I needed a definitive answer, which had been

lacking from previous enquiries.

>

> I remain concerned that others choose to use the leaflet and that I may be

required to answer a member of the public on the matter.

>

> I think the best I can do in this situation is to ask them to take it up

with the ASA. Only by them ruling on the matter will it be resolved.

Although it seems clear cut that the wording is in breach, according to

their definition of a healthcare professional.

>

> It would be better if this had been changed to avoid controversy and

confusion in the first place.

>

> Lorraine

>

> Lorraine Hodgkinson MNIMH MRCHM

> HERBS AND HELPERS

> 6, Butts Fold, Cockermouth,

> Cumbria, CA13 9HY. UK.

> Tel: +44 (0) 1900 826392

> Mobile: 07761 489838 (O2)

> www.herbalmedicineuk.com

>

>

>

>

>> The practise of herbal medicine (with all that entails by the virtues of

>> tradition, education and practice) is currently recognised under the

>> exemption to the Medicines Act Section 12 (1). The government has

recognised

>> that this needs improving (by SR) and has announced that the process is

now

>> underway.

>> The ASA " CopyAdvice Team " may not appreciate the implications of all

this;

>> but that is no excuse and it needs to get itself up to speed.

>> If ASA seems to be giving out information that is at variance with the

>> general thrust of government intention, perhaps it could be encouraged to

>> " get real " , from the correct direction?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Hi Krystyna,

>>> No, they don't - you are absolutely right, but this is the reply I got

from

>>> them (ie from CopyAdvice team) regarding this particular

issue: " Regarding

>>> suitably qualified, the ASA has taken the approach that a

>>> suitably qualified healthcare professional is one regulated by statute

and/

>>> or

>>> registered with the Health Professionals Council. It would be up to the

>>> ASA council to determine whether or not a professional outside these

>>> parameters

>>> would fall into the category of suitably qualified. Currently, it would

>>> appear that this would not apply to members of the CPP. " I am not a

member

>>> of NIMH any more, so I asked as a CPP member - I do not think it would

make

>>> any difference, but who knows. So, yes there is room for interpretation,

but

>>> my gut feel is that ASA would take a negative/conservative approach.

Best

>>> wishes

>>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> From: <<mailto:laura.stannard%40gmail.com>

laura.stannard@...>

>>>

>>>> Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>>>

>>>> To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>

ukherbal-list

>>>

>>>> Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> Â

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> Presume you refer to the bit:

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> (e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if

not

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to

be

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>> atb

>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Lorraine

One of the reasons I pay my subscription and put NIMH after my name is

that I am happy to have the appropriate council member do this on my

behalf, and trust them to do so.

As I think I said before,(or something similar) I imagine that the ASA

like any other government body is overworked and understaffed, and can't

see the point in fussing over details like this. I feel it is an energy

wasting distraction from more important matters.

As the comment about chiropractic highlights, the important thing at

this point is to ensure that the comments in the consultation document

about APPROPRIATE evidence for HM are taken on board.

If you've not read the appendix referring to research, it's worth reading,

IMHOP we need to stop arguing about this stuff and start generating good

outcomes research as quickly and rigorously as we possibly can, and also

reinforcing the point that traditional use is accepted where there is

none of the more familiar types of evidence.

Also to join the orthodox medics who question the acceptance of RCTs as

gold standard.

Have you got any good case histories to write up? ;-)

The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

best wishes

Sally Owen

Lorraine Hodgkinson wrote:

> Just ring them up and ask them they are quite happy to tell you so. Maybe

> you could say you are recording the call for training and monitoring

> purposes? Everybody else does! Perhaps the whole list should get them on a

> conference call then we can all hear it at the same time!

>

> Lorraine

>

>

>

>

>> Hi ,

>>

>> Has the ASA got anything in writing, on its

>> website, about its interpretation of who they

>> consider to be a " health professional " , or point

>> to a case where they ruled that someone who is

>> not regulated by a statutory regulator could not

>> use the words diagnose/diagnosis in their marketing material?

>>

>> And if so, shouldn't the second part of Rule 12.2 of the Cap Code be

>> rewritten?

>> Currently this rule states:

>>

>>

>> 12.2

>> Marketers must not discourage essential treatment

>> for conditions for which medical supervision

>> should be sought. For example, they must not

>> offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or

>> treatment for such conditions unless that advice,

>> diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the

>> supervision of a suitably qualified health

>> professional. Accurate and responsible general

>> information about such conditions may, however, be offered. (See rule

>> 12.11.)

>>

>>

>> Health professionals will be deemed suitably

>> qualified only if they can provide suitable

>> credentials; for example, evidence of: relevant

>> professional expertise or qualifications; systems

>> for regular review of members’ skills and

>> competencies and suitable professional indemnity

>> insurance covering all services provided;

>> accreditation by a professional or regulatory

>> body that has systems for dealing with complaints

>> and taking disciplinary action and has

>> registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.

>>

>> Best regards,

>>

>> Krystyna

>>

>>

>> At 23:30 09/05/2011, you wrote:

>>

>>> Hi ,I think that's the problem - ASA

>>> recognizes only the medical or professional

>>> bodies that belong to HPC (this is the exisitng

>>> official recognition, not aspiring). Very narrow

>>> interpretation of the actual CAP rules - I agree.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>>> To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

>>>

>>> Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

>>>

>>> Â

>>>

>>> Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

>>>

>>> place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

>>>

>>> difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

>>>

>>> body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

>>>

>>> No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

>>>

>>> Presume you refer to the bit:

>>>

>>> " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

>>>

>>> for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

>>>

>>> supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

>>>

>>> (e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

>>>

>>> health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

>>>

>>> about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

>>>

>>> The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

>>>

>>> or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

>>>

>>> regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

>>>

>>> then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

>>>

>>> with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

>>>

>>> Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

>>>

>>> addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

>>>

>>> rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

>>>

>>> dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

>>>

>>> pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

>>>

>>> atb

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

Addenda

I hope this doesn't look like I don't think our right to diagnosos is

not important, I do.

But I have to seriously question whether demanding NIMH remove it from

our leaflets is the best way of safe guarding it......

Sally

> Dear Lorraine

>

> One of the reasons I pay my subscription and put NIMH after my name is

> that I am happy to have the appropriate council member do this on my

> behalf, and trust them to do so.

>

> As I think I said before,(or something similar) I imagine that the ASA

> like any other government body is overworked and understaffed, and can't

> see the point in fussing over details like this. I feel it is an energy

> wasting distraction from more important matters.

>

> As the comment about chiropractic highlights, the important thing at

> this point is to ensure that the comments in the consultation document

> about APPROPRIATE evidence for HM are taken on board.

>

> If you've not read the appendix referring to research, it's worth reading,

>

> IMHOP we need to stop arguing about this stuff and start generating good

> outcomes research as quickly and rigorously as we possibly can, and also

> reinforcing the point that traditional use is accepted where there is

> none of the more familiar types of evidence.

>

> Also to join the orthodox medics who question the acceptance of RCTs as

> gold standard.

>

> Have you got any good case histories to write up? ;-)

>

> The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

>

> best wishes

>

> Sally Owen

>

> Lorraine Hodgkinson wrote:

>> Just ring them up and ask them they are quite happy to tell you so. Maybe

>> you could say you are recording the call for training and monitoring

>> purposes? Everybody else does! Perhaps the whole list should get them on a

>> conference call then we can all hear it at the same time!

>>

>> Lorraine

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>> Hi ,

>>>

>>> Has the ASA got anything in writing, on its

>>> website, about its interpretation of who they

>>> consider to be a " health professional " , or point

>>> to a case where they ruled that someone who is

>>> not regulated by a statutory regulator could not

>>> use the words diagnose/diagnosis in their marketing material?

>>>

>>> And if so, shouldn't the second part of Rule 12.2 of the Cap Code be

>>> rewritten?

>>> Currently this rule states:

>>>

>>>

>>> 12.2

>>> Marketers must not discourage essential treatment

>>> for conditions for which medical supervision

>>> should be sought. For example, they must not

>>> offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or

>>> treatment for such conditions unless that advice,

>>> diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the

>>> supervision of a suitably qualified health

>>> professional. Accurate and responsible general

>>> information about such conditions may, however, be offered. (See rule

>>> 12.11.)

>>>

>>>

>>> Health professionals will be deemed suitably

>>> qualified only if they can provide suitable

>>> credentials; for example, evidence of: relevant

>>> professional expertise or qualifications; systems

>>> for regular review of members’ skills and

>>> competencies and suitable professional indemnity

>>> insurance covering all services provided;

>>> accreditation by a professional or regulatory

>>> body that has systems for dealing with complaints

>>> and taking disciplinary action and has

>>> registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.

>>>

>>> Best regards,

>>>

>>> Krystyna

>>>

>>>

>>> At 23:30 09/05/2011, you wrote:

>>>

>>>> Hi ,I think that's the problem - ASA

>>>> recognizes only the medical or professional

>>>> bodies that belong to HPC (this is the exisitng

>>>> official recognition, not aspiring). Very narrow

>>>> interpretation of the actual CAP rules - I agree.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

>>>> To:<mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

>>>>

>>>> Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

>>>>

>>>> Â

>>>>

>>>> Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

>>>>

>>>> place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

>>>>

>>>> difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

>>>>

>>>> body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

>>>>

>>>> No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

>>>>

>>>> Presume you refer to the bit:

>>>>

>>>> " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

>>>>

>>>> for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

>>>>

>>>> supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

>>>>

>>>> (e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

>>>>

>>>> health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

>>>>

>>>> about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

>>>>

>>>> The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

>>>>

>>>> or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

>>>>

>>>> regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

>>>>

>>>> then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

>>>>

>>>> with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

>>>>

>>>> Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

>>>>

>>>> addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

>>>>

>>>> rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

>>>>

>>>> dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

>>>>

>>>> pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

>>>>

>>>> atb

>>>>

>>>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Lorraine,

I could indeed ring the ASA up and record the

telephone conversation. Legally I can, without

even telling them, but I can't share the

information with a third party. I would need their consent for that.

Alternatively, I can write to them and get back

written confirmation. If they confirm in writing

that they consider that only statutorily

regulated health professions can state that they

" diagnose " , I could make a complaint to the ASA

against CAP code Rule 12.2 as currently

publicised via its website because the rule is misleading.

Obviously the more people draw their attention to

this, the sooner the Code is amended.

But why would any of us on this list chose to do

that? What we as herbalists may say is restricted

enough as it is. What next? That you can't state

that you measure blood pressure or use a

stethoscope, or examine a patient in any way

because you are engaging in diagnostic

procedures. Using " medical " , as in " medical

herbalist " , in case it implies we are medical

doctors. Restricting the use of the word

" professional " to statutorily regulated bodies. Use of the word " health " .

Best regards,

Krystyna

>Just ring them up and ask them they are quite happy to tell you so.

>you could say you are recording the call for training and monitoring

>purposes? Everybody else does! Perhaps the whole list should get them on a

>conference call then we can all hear it at the same time!

>

>Lorraine

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > Hi ,

> >

> > Has the ASA got anything in writing, on its

> > website, about its interpretation of who they

> > consider to be a " health professional " , or point

> > to a case where they ruled that someone who is

> > not regulated by a statutory regulator could not

> > use the words diagnose/diagnosis in their marketing material?

> >

> > And if so, shouldn't the second part of Rule 12.2 of the Cap Code be

> > rewritten?

> > Currently this rule states:

> >

> >

> > 12.2

> > Marketers must not discourage essential treatment

> > for conditions for which medical supervision

> > should be sought. For example, they must not

> > offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or

> > treatment for such conditions unless that advice,

> > diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the

> > supervision of a suitably qualified health

> > professional. Accurate and responsible general

> > information about such conditions may, however, be offered. (See rule

> > 12.11.)

> >

> >

> > Health professionals will be deemed suitably

> > qualified only if they can provide suitable

> > credentials; for example, evidence of: relevant

> > professional expertise or qualifications; systems

> > for regular review of members’ skills and

> > competencies and suitable professional indemnity

> > insurance covering all services provided;

> > accreditation by a professional or regulatory

> > body that has systems for dealing with complaints

> > and taking disciplinary action and has

> > registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Krystyna

> >

> >

> > At 23:30 09/05/2011, you wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >Hi ,I think that's the problem - ASA

> > >recognizes only the medical or professional

> > >bodies that belong to HPC (this is the exisitng

> > >official recognition, not aspiring). Very narrow

> > >interpretation of the actual CAP rules - I agree.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > >Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

> > >To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

> >

> > >Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

> > >

> > >Â

> > >

> > >Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

> > >

> > >place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

> > >

> > >difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

> > >

> > >body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

> > >

> > >No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

> > >

> > >Presume you refer to the bit:

> > >

> > > " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

> > >

> > >for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

> > >

> > >supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

> > >

> > >(e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

> > >

> > >health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

> > >

> > >about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

> > >

> > >The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

> > >

> > >or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

> > >

> > >regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

> > >

> > >then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

> > >

> > >with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

> > >

> > >Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

> > >

> > >addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

> > >

> > >rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

> > >

> > >dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

> > >

> > >pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

> > >

> > >atb

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hello Sally,

I tried for six weeks to sort this out with the NIMH,

emailing them every week. I just got 'none' answers, I was forced to ask the

ASA about it so I knew the position. As soon as I was told that we were not

healthcare professionals I realised the leaflet was in breach. To be honest

the leaflet should have been rewritten to stop this problem occurring. I

will refer anyone who asks me about it directly to the ASA and they can then

rule on it. There's too many areas we can be tripped up in just trying to

minimise that!

Yes happy to move on this subject on now ...

Lorraine.

> Dear Lorraine

>

> One of the reasons I pay my subscription and put NIMH after my name is

> that I am happy to have the appropriate council member do this on my

> behalf, and trust them to do so.

>

> As I think I said before,(or something similar) I imagine that the ASA

> like any other government body is overworked and understaffed, and can't

> see the point in fussing over details like this. I feel it is an energy

> wasting distraction from more important matters.

>

> As the comment about chiropractic highlights, the important thing at

> this point is to ensure that the comments in the consultation document

> about APPROPRIATE evidence for HM are taken on board.

>

> If you've not read the appendix referring to research, it's worth reading,

>

> IMHOP we need to stop arguing about this stuff and start generating good

> outcomes research as quickly and rigorously as we possibly can, and also

> reinforcing the point that traditional use is accepted where there is

> none of the more familiar types of evidence.

>

> Also to join the orthodox medics who question the acceptance of RCTs as

> gold standard.

>

> Have you got any good case histories to write up? ;-)

>

> The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

>

> best wishes

>

> Sally Owen

>

> Lorraine Hodgkinson wrote:

> > Just ring them up and ask them they are quite happy to tell you so. Maybe

> > you could say you are recording the call for training and monitoring

> > purposes? Everybody else does! Perhaps the whole list should get them on

> a

> > conference call then we can all hear it at the same time!

> >

> > Lorraine

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >> Hi ,

> >>

> >> Has the ASA got anything in writing, on its

> >> website, about its interpretation of who they

> >> consider to be a " health professional " , or point

> >> to a case where they ruled that someone who is

> >> not regulated by a statutory regulator could not

> >> use the words diagnose/diagnosis in their marketing material?

> >>

> >> And if so, shouldn't the second part of Rule 12.2 of the Cap Code be

> >> rewritten?

> >> Currently this rule states:

> >>

> >>

> >> 12.2

> >> Marketers must not discourage essential treatment

> >> for conditions for which medical supervision

> >> should be sought. For example, they must not

> >> offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or

> >> treatment for such conditions unless that advice,

> >> diagnosis or treatment is conducted under the

> >> supervision of a suitably qualified health

> >> professional. Accurate and responsible general

> >> information about such conditions may, however, be offered. (See rule

> >> 12.11.)

> >>

> >>

> >> Health professionals will be deemed suitably

> >> qualified only if they can provide suitable

> >> credentials; for example, evidence of: relevant

> >> professional expertise or qualifications; systems

> >> for regular review of members’ skills and

> >> competencies and suitable professional indemnity

> >> insurance covering all services provided;

> >> accreditation by a professional or regulatory

> >> body that has systems for dealing with complaints

> >> and taking disciplinary action and has

> >> registration based on minimum standards for training and qualifications.

> >>

> >> Best regards,

> >>

> >> Krystyna

> >>

> >>

> >> At 23:30 09/05/2011, you wrote:

> >>

> >>> Hi ,I think that's the problem - ASA

> >>> recognizes only the medical or professional

> >>> bodies that belong to HPC (this is the exisitng

> >>> official recognition, not aspiring). Very narrow

> >>> interpretation of the actual CAP rules - I agree.

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> From: <<mailto:laura.stannard%40gmail.com>

> laura.stannard@...>

> >>>

> >>> Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

> >>> To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>

> ukherbal-list

> >>>

> >>> Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

> >>>

> >>> Â

> >>>

> >>> Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

> >>>

> >>> place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

> >>>

> >>> difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

> >>>

> >>> body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

> >>>

> >>> No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

> >>>

> >>> Presume you refer to the bit:

> >>>

> >>> " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

> >>>

> >>> for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

> >>>

> >>> supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

> >>>

> >>> (e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

> >>>

> >>> health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

> >>>

> >>> about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

> >>>

> >>> The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

> >>>

> >>> or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

> >>>

> >>> regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if

> not

> >>>

> >>> then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

> >>>

> >>> with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

> >>>

> >>> Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to

> be

> >>>

> >>> addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

> >>>

> >>> rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

> >>>

> >>> dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

> >>>

> >>> pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

> >>>

> >>> atb

> >>>

> >>>

[Guest guest]

Surely we (and osteopaths and chiropracters etc) must fight tooth and nail to

maintain our right to diagnose in the interests of protecting the public -

otherwise to whom can they turn when their GP fails to take them seriously?

I am personally aware of three diagnoses of cancer that were made by alternative

health professionals after the clients had been brushed off by their GPs - two

of these have sadly since died as what should have been entirely treatable was

picked up too late due to what I would consider a failure of duty of care by

their GPs. However the third case (my own client) was spotted by me early enough

for the GP's attention to be highlighted, referrals to cancer specialists made

etc and is therefore still very much alive and well.

a

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > >Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

> > > >To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>ukherbal-list

> > >

> > > >Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

> > > >

> > > >Â

> > > >

> > > >Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to take

> > > >

> > > >place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

> > > >

> > > >difference between an individual having discussions and a professional

> > > >

> > > >body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

> > > >

> > > >No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

> > > >

> > > >Presume you refer to the bit:

> > > >

> > > > " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or treatment

> > > >

> > > >for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

> > > >

> > > >supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health professional

> > > >

> > > >(e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical or

> > > >

> > > >health profession body). Accurate and responsible general information

> > > >

> > > >about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

> > > >

> > > >The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by statute'

> > > >

> > > >or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not yet

> > > >

> > > >regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if not

> > > >

> > > >then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant group

> > > >

> > > >with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

> > > >

> > > >Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need to be

> > > >

> > > >addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

> > > >

> > > >rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as a

> > > >

> > > >dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as the

> > > >

> > > >pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

> > > >

> > > >atb

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

I agree wholeheartedly a - and unfortunately have experienced at

least four women misdiagnosed with bowel cancer because they were too

" young " to possibly have bowel cancer. They had classic " red flag "

symptoms, two were treated for piles for over 18 months despite

symptoms increasing, these two women (age 38 and 46) have now died -

one was my cousin. By the time they were properly diagnosed they had

mets. I would like to have thought that if I had seem them presenting

with such obvious symptoms that I would have insisted on further

investigations being carried out. I'm not saying we are perfect and

wouldn't make clinical errors but I think its important to have

potential second opinions and others in alternative medicine that can

be approached if a health care professional isn't taking them

seriously. If we allow our right to primary diagnosis be eroded we

become complimentary therapists with no real professional standing.

Jean

Re: advertising and herbalists

> > > >To:

<mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>;ukherbal-list

> > >

> > > >Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

> > > >

> > > >Â

> > > >

> > > >Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need

to take

> > > >

> > > >place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

> > > >

> > > >difference between an individual having discussions and a

professional

> > > >

> > > >body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

> > > >

> > > >No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

> > > >

> > > >Presume you refer to the bit:

> > > >

> > > > " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or

treatment

> > > >

> > > >for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under

the

> > > >

> > > >supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health

professional

> > > >

> > > >(e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised

medical or

> > > >

> > > >health profession body). Accurate and responsible general

information

> > > >

> > > >about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my

highlighting)

> > > >

> > > >The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by

statute'

> > > >

> > > >or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are

not yet

> > > >

> > > >regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised

- if not

> > > >

> > > >then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an

aspirant group

> > > >

> > > >with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

> > > >

> > > >Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we

need to be

> > > >

> > > >addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests

that

> > > >

> > > >rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as

effective as a

> > > >

> > > >dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting

as the

> > > >

> > > >pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

> > > >

> > > >atb

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Hi Krystyna,

I thought this thread was finished! I can only tell you

what I was told by them. Remember its not what you do but what you say you

do in print/website that the rules govern. You can chat away to your client

verbally etc. As explained I work in a clinic where others display the

leaflet (I do not and will not be) and if a member of the public asks me

about it I will refer them straight to the ASA on the basis of what the ASA

have said. It seems the use of the word diagnosis is in breach, please talk

to the ASA, I'm sure they'll have to say the same to everyone. I'm also in

the RCHM and they have taken a particular stand on certain areas so are

supporting members in certain areas also which they made very clear prior to

the new leglislation being released.

Lets finish this thread now please.

Lorraine.

>

>

> Surely we (and osteopaths and chiropracters etc) must fight tooth and nail

> to maintain our right to diagnose in the interests of protecting the public

> - otherwise to whom can they turn when their GP fails to take them

> seriously?

>

> I am personally aware of three diagnoses of cancer that were made by

> alternative health professionals after the clients had been brushed off by

> their GPs - two of these have sadly since died as what should have been

> entirely treatable was picked up too late due to what I would consider a

> failure of duty of care by their GPs. However the third case (my own client)

> was spotted by me early enough for the GP's attention to be highlighted,

> referrals to cancer specialists made etc and is therefore still very much

> alive and well.

>

> a

>

> > > > >

> > > > >

>

> > > >

> > > > >Subject: Re: advertising and herbalists

> > > > >To: <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com>

> ukherbal-list

> > > >

> > > > >Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 22:12

> > > > >

> > > > >Â

> > > > >

> > > > >Hi That's precisely why those discussions/negotiations need to

> take

> > > > >

> > > > >place at a higher level i.e council of governing body. There is a

> > > > >

> > > > >difference between an individual having discussions and a

> professional

> > > > >

> > > > >body - just having a title has clout - no offence intended.

> > > > >

> > > > >No need to dig it out - I have it on my desktop, thanks anyway.

> > > > >

> > > > >Presume you refer to the bit:

> > > > >

> > > > > " They should not offer specific advice on, diagnosis of or

> treatment

> > > > >

> > > > >for serious or prolonged conditions unless it is conducted under the

> > > > >

> > > > >supervision of a doctor or other suitably qualified health

> professional

> > > > >

> > > > >(e.g. one subject to regulation by a statutory or recognised medical

> or

> > > > >

> > > > >health profession body). Accurate and responsible general

> information

> > > > >

> > > > >about such conditions may, however, be offered. " (my highlighting)

> > > > >

> > > > >The advice states a body/professional is either 'regulated by

> statute'

> > > > >

> > > > >or 'recognised' as being part of a professional body. As we are not

> yet

> > > > >

> > > > >regulated by stature, that doesn't apply. But we are recognised - if

> not

> > > > >

> > > > >then why or how are we heading for SR? Herbalists are an aspirant

> group

> > > > >

> > > > >with HPC. If that is not recognition, then I don't know what is.

> > > > >

> > > > >Providing evidence of efficacy is a different matter - and we need

> to be

> > > > >

> > > > >addressing that.Especially when the likes of Dr Oakley suggests that

> > > > >

> > > > >rubbing a nettle skin with your hand or a flannel is as effective as

> a

> > > > >

> > > > >dock leaf. The man has obviously never suffered a nettle sting as

> the

> > > > >

> > > > >pain lasts for days if you don't use dock.

> > > > >

> > > > >atb

> > > > >

> > > > >