The following is an article produced by one of our committee members, Patricia Blaxill.  We welcome contributions on this subject by other members and hope that this will start an ongoing discussion forum.  It is important that we support each other as therapists in these exciting and crucial developments.

Regulation: a welcome move or an unnecessary evil?

For those of us practising complementary therapies the debate on regulation has been ongoing for many years.  However, the direction in which things are moving is starting to become clearer. 

The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health has recently undertaken a consultation process based around the document “Exploring a Federal Approach to Voluntary Self Regulation of Complementary Healthcare”.  Its findings could be implemented as early as 2008 if our industry’s response is favourable.

If you practise one or more of the following, then your therapy could be regulated by the Federal Regulatory Body, known as the Federal Council:

• Alexnder Technique
• Aromatherapy
• Bowen Therapy
• Cranial Therapy
• Homeopathy
• Massage
• Naturopathy
• Nutritional Therapy
• Reflexology
• Yoga Therapy
• Reiki (may be added to the list above)

You need to be clear that this is not Statutory Regulation such as that which applies to osteopathy or chiropractic for example, where you would not be permitted to call yourself an “osteopath” without having achieved registration.  Voluntary Self Regulation (VSR) would mean that the Regulatory Body holds a central register of practitioners whom they promote to the general public.  Under VSR you cannot be barred from practising if you are not on the register but as awareness increases amongst the general public they will start to demand the safeguard of a registered practitioner.

The Federal Council would act to protect the public by:

• keeping a Register of Practitioners admitted to practise
• determining standards of training and education to practise
• providing advice and standards of conduct and performance and administering an appropriate fitness to practise mechanism

This is distinct from protection of the therapist by their own professional body.

The existence of the Federal Council has advantages for the practitioner in terms of cost.  Put simply, if each therapy produced its own register a therapist who practises many therapies might find they have multiple costs to be on each register.  This would not be the case with the Federal Council approach.

Entry criteria for registration with the new body will be determined by each therapy group.  In addition, it will be compulsory to undertake CPD (Continuous Professional Development) in order to maintain registration status.  This means the onus will be on the individual therapist to monitor their own fulfilment of this requirement and look out for opportunities to achieve the level required.  If therapists have been in practice for some time there may be some leeway in the early days of registration and their being able to provide evidence of being up to standard. 

This might take the form of a personal portfolio for example.  It might be advisable to start putting together such evidence now if therapists are not already doing so.  Examples of evidence comprise: certification and details of CPD, both formal and informal.  Course attendance is obviously acceptable but so is attending appropriate meetings and reading relevant journals.

If you require more information on these developments contact your professional body or visit the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health’s website at: www.fih.org.uk