Naturopath guilty in death

[arcticpenguin]

:mad: :mad: :mad: For those who ask, "What harm it could it do to let people believe bizarre things?", wake up and smell the dead babies.

A NATUROPATH was today found guilty of the manslaughter of an 18-day-old baby he was treating.

Reginald Harold Fenn, 74, had pleaded not guilty to the unlawful killing of baby Mitchell James Little who was born with aortic stenosis - a structural heart defect that could only be treated by surgery.

During the nine-day trial in the Supreme Court at Newcastle, north of Sydney, the court was told the Port Stephens naturopath had treated the baby in September 1999 with herbal drops and a "Mora Machine" before declaring him cured.

He recommended that parents, Michael and Elizabeth Little, not allow their baby to undergo surgery.

Mr and Mrs Little then cancelled an appointment at Westmead Hospital where Mitchell was to be assessed for an operation to repair or replace the narrowed aortic valve that was putting pressure on his enlarged and overworked heart.

[CFLarsen]

Sources?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sources?

Don't know if this was the original source, but: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7102560%255E1702,00.html

[CFLarsen]

Thanks!

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Don't know if this was the original source, but: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7102560%255E1702,00.html
Thanks; sorry for the oversight.

[reprise]

You know, until we get over our attitude of "the parents have suffered enough" and start punishing the parents for their part in fiascos like this one, it's going to keep happening.

[SRW]

The parents probably find comfort in "It must be Gods will" Yeah and god aslo wants them to do hard time in prison.

[plindboe]

These parents probably had the best intentions for their child, but lacked the sense of rational thinking when choosing where to turn. Is stupidity a crime?

Peter

[tim]

I try not to be too judgemental - but I think the parents were pretty stupid here, and they're guilty of that. I think the verdict is fair - Mr Fenn was clearly acting beyond his expertise. That a common cold was beyond his expertise is merely my opinion.

[T'ai Chi]

A horribly tragic thing.

However, this is a blemish on that particular naturopath, not naturopathy as a whole. Responsible alternative medicine practicioners recommend patients see traditional doctors for surgery-necessary conditions.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
A horribly tragic thing.

However, this is a blemish on that particular naturopath, not naturopathy as a whole. Responsible alternative medicine practicioners recommend patients see traditional doctors for surgery-necessary conditions.

there is no such thing as "alternative" medicine.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


there is no such thing as "alternative" medicine.

Uh huh, sure big guy, wish it away.

;)

Anyway, you surely know of what I am talking about.

[BTox]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Uh huh, sure big guy, wish it away.

;)

Anyway, you surely know of what I am talking about.

There is nothing to wish away. He is exactly right, there is no "alternative" medicine. If it works, and is clinically proven to do so, it is medicine. If it does not, e.g. homeopathy, it is quackery.

[Luceiia]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Uh huh, sure big guy, wish it away.



Excellent pun. =)

There is medicine that works and can be backed up by a body of evidence (facts). Wishing those facts to be true or false has no bearing on medical effectiveness.

There are methods that do not work and cannot be backed up by facts (alternative medicine). That was a very clever pun to suggest the 'wishing away' of something that exists only in wishes. Kudos!


Luceiia

[Elaborate]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Uh huh, sure big guy, wish it away.

;)

Anyway, you surely know of what I am talking about.

Only if by "alternative" you mean "untested, unproven, and possibly dangerous".

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BTox

He is exactly right, there is no "alternative" medicine. If it works, and is clinically proven to do so, it is medicine. If it does not, e.g. homeopathy, it is quackery.

There are many clinical studies showing significance with several different alternative medicines.

You might protest that:

1. small sample size
2. need better experimental design
3. p value not small enough
4. need to be written up in better journal
5. need magicians there for quality control
6. needs to be replicated more
7. (insert your choice here)

However, these things can be said about any study.

"alternative" etc., are just words. What I meant was any form of treatment not done by the majority of the doctors in the United States (for example).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Elaborate

Only if by "alternative" you mean "untested, unproven, and possibly dangerous".

Many have been tested.

Many have been "proven" (technically, I think you mean "evidence shown for...")

But yes, many haven't been tested, "proven", and some are, in fact, dangerous.

By alternative medicine I mean:

(from NCCAM webpage)

"Complementary and alternative medicine, as defined by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. The list of practices that are considered CAM changes continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge. "

That is to say, not the normal treatments.

[BTox]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


"alternative" etc., are just words. What I meant was any form of treatment not done by the majority of the doctors in the United States (for example).

That definition encompasses any experimental treatments as well. Do you consider them alternative? NDA drugs?

Some of what you call "alternative" may have merit as they have a feasible mode of action and show clinical promise. And with further testing to confirm efficacy and safety, will become mainstream. Others, like homeopathy, have no feasible mode of action, have not shown clinical efficacy, will never become mainstream.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Many have been tested.

Many have been "proven" (technically, I think you mean "evidence shown for...")

But yes, many haven't been tested, "proven", and some are, in fact, dangerous.

By alternative medicine I mean:

(from NCCAM webpage)

"Complementary and alternative medicine, as defined by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. The list of practices that are considered CAM changes continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge. "

That is to say, not the normal treatments.

ok Oinkman. of course the National Association of Crap and Crap Prentending to Not Be Crap is going to pretend that the crap that they "represent" exists. however, that doesn't push away a very important fact; if a treatment is shown to have some benefit, it is medicine, and it it isn't shown to have benefit, then it ain't. also, Oinkie ol' buddy, unconventional != alternative in the sense that you are meaning.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

ok Oinkman.


I'm not following your adhom there.


of course the National Association of Crap and Crap Prentending to Not Be Crap is going to pretend that the crap that they "represent" exists.


Now you're simply being irrational.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I'm not following your adhom there.



it's not an ad-hom. it is simply a little nickname that i have given you. i hope you like it, Oinkie.



Now you're simply being irrational.

pot calling kettle. can you read me kettle? please come in kettle.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

it's not an ad-hom. it is simply a little nickname that i have given you. i hope you like it, Oinkie.


I do. I was honestly going to put you on ignore, but I've decided not to because I really like that name! Oinkie, hehe! Funny!

Thanks again Ed!

[tim]

Tsk, tsk. Children WILL be children! :D :D :D

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Uh huh, sure big guy, wish it away.

;)

Anyway, you surely know of what I am talking about.

Can't. It doesn't exist.

[gnome]

I'd personally like to speak against the unnecessary use of rude names such as "oinkman", no matter whom I agree with...

For those I agree with--it just gives one's opponent something irrelevant to grab onto and discredit you with...

For those I disagree with--obviously you're wrong or you wouldn't have to call people names :D

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

it's not an ad-hom. it is simply a little nickname that i have given you. i hope you like it, Oinkie.

If it doesn't like that nickname, you could try calling it Woowoodini.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

If it doesn't like that nickname, you could try calling it Woowoodini.

I like that one too, as well as Sherlock, Sherlump, Oinkman, Woodini, Hotpants, Smartestmanalive, whatever.

They all tickle my funny bone and make my day brighter. Not to mention, the outright courtesy shown towards me convinces me to want to stay here forever. Thanks!

:)

[thaiboxerken]

Homeopathy is quackery, it does not word.

You can wish CAM to work all you want, Tai. CAM really means "we can get away with not doing research".

I'll stick with evidence-based medicine. You can CAM your way to the morgue, I just hope you don't teach children to buy into CAM.

If you know a homeopath that can cure a particular ailment with homeopathic medicine, please refer him to the JREF million.

[Mr Manifesto]

What the article doesn't mention (and it's true because it happened in my home town) is what Mr Fenn looks like. I can't find a pic of him on the net, and don't have a scanner. More's the pity. He looks like a stroke victim that just had his jaw broken by a five hundred pound genetically engineered gorilla on the wrong steroids.

If I was having my baby treated, and Mr Homeopathic Remedy came up to my front door looking like that, I'd have to ask myself, "Why doesn't it work on him?"

[reprise]

Originally posted by plindboe
These parents probably had the best intentions for their child, but lacked the sense of rational thinking when choosing where to turn. Is stupidity a crime?

Peter

In cases like this one, stupidity should be a crime. This was a neonate with a life-threatening condition which is known to be correctable only by surgery - there's not a chance on the planet that the doctors who diagnosed the condition wouldn't have made that extremely clear to the parents. The very fact that Westmead had scheduled an appointment to assess the child for surgery at such a young age indicates that doctors regarded his condition as in need of urgent attention, and I wonder whether the baby was at home with his parents against medical advice.

I would have doubted the wisdom of using naturopathy in one so young even had it only been used as a complementary therapy - that it was used by these parent as the only therapy is, IMHO, utterly irresponsible and deserving of punishment.

I also wonder whether the reference in the article to the appointment being rescheduled after doctors intervene means that the doctors informed the parents that they intended to make application to the court for permission to treat the baby in the absence of parental consent.

[Diamond]

Clear Mr Fenn believes in his naturopathic abilities...and clearly that belief is false. Let it be a warning to parents everywhere...don't trust your instincts, seek expert medical advice.

I doubt that the parents will be over the guilt any time soon.

[athon]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Many have been tested.

Many have been "proven" (technically, I think you mean "evidence shown for...")

But yes, many haven't been tested, "proven", and some are, in fact, dangerous.

By alternative medicine I mean:

(from NCCAM webpage)

"Complementary and alternative medicine, as defined by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. The list of practices that are considered CAM changes continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge. "

That is to say, not the normal treatments.

Homeopathy is dangerous because of its lack of substantial and reproducable evidence.

Naturopathy is dangerous not because it doesn't have the ptoential to work, but rather the opposite - the means of treatment in naturopathic medicine does work.

In creating a drug, years of testing, retesting and triple testing have to occur. The methods by which the drug works, the effect on a human body, the contraindicative effects of such biochemicals on a person already on drugs...all of these things must be taken into account.

Naturopaths think they can circumvent this. They assume that because it is a plant, it cannot do harm.

WRONG! Anything that affects a person's biochemistry without full understanding of its mechanisms has the potential to do great harm. And it's about time governments woke up to this understanding, or more deaths will occur.

(sorry - quite passionate about this one)

Athon

[reprise]

athon, we both know that one of the reasons why some aspects of naturopathy have not been given official endorsement in Australia is because naturopaths as a group are not prepared to fund the necessary trials which would lead to the Therapeutic Goods Administration endorsing their preparations as therapeutic substances, nor are they prepared for their remedies to be regulated in the manner which TGA registration would demand.

There have been occasions when the TGA has stepped in to regulate the use of certain substances used by alternative medicine practitioners following questioning about their safety - L Tryptophan, selenium, and royal jelly are three which spring immediately to mind, but I'm sure there have been others - but it will not usually do so in the absence of evidence that a particular therapeutic substance (or combination of substances) presents a safety risk to those using it.

Ironically, it is the alternative medicine practitioners themselves who ultimately have the most to lose should their therapies be formally recognised as a form of medical practise. Both the practitioners themselves, and the remedies which they dispense, would then be subjected to stringent controls which are not currently applied to their industry.

[athon]

Originally posted by reprise
athon, we both know that one of the reasons why some aspects of naturopathy have not been given official endorsement in Australia is because naturopaths as a group are not prepared to fund the necessary trials which would lead to the Therapeutic Goods Administration endorsing their preparations as therapeutic substances, nor are they prepared for their remedies to be regulated in the manner which TGA registration would demand.

Yeah, I know. I have next to no faith in the TGA - hell, if you look at our legislation, a therapeutic good is defined as any substance that has been used as such for three generations or more OR can be demonstrated scientifically as having a therapeutic affect.

I love that 'or'.

It's just a pity that we can have ministers in government control a department's folio when they don't have to have any previous experience in that sector. A complete dimwit can make decisions on health without ever having had so much as a degree in science.

Athon

[reprise]

Originally posted by athon


Yeah, I know. I have next to no faith in the TGA - hell, if you look at our legislation, a therapeutic good is defined as any substance that has been used as such for three generations or more OR can be demonstrated scientifically as having a therapeutic affect.

I love that 'or'.

It's just a pity that we can have ministers in government control a department's folio when they don't have to have any previous experience in that sector. A complete dimwit can make decisions on health without ever having had so much as a degree in science.

Athon


One thing I would really like to see happen - and which could be legislated reasonably quickly is for health funds to be prohibited from refunding any portion of the cost of therapies which are not subject to DoH regulation. Financial reimbursement of "alternative medicine" costs implies that those therapies have a legitimacy which they do not.

[Missy]

Originally posted by athon


Homeopathy is dangerous because of its lack of substantial and reproducable evidence.

Naturopathy is dangerous not because it doesn't have the ptoential to work, but rather the opposite - the means of treatment in naturopathic medicine does work.

In creating a drug, years of testing, retesting and triple testing have to occur. The methods by which the drug works, the effect on a human body, the contraindicative effects of such biochemicals on a person already on drugs...all of these things must be taken into account.

Naturopaths think they can circumvent this. They assume that because it is a plant, it cannot do harm.

WRONG! Anything that affects a person's biochemistry without full understanding of its mechanisms has the potential to do great harm. And it's about time governments woke up to this understanding, or more deaths will occur.

(sorry - quite passionate about this one)

Athon


I actually agree with what T'ai Chi is trying to say. Yes it is true that Naturopathy can be dangerous, if not used by a competent and qualified Naturopath. Here in New Zealand, I believe, Naturopaths are trained know their limitations and when to refer onto a doctor. Also, I believe that Naturopathy is not seen as an 'alternative medicine' but a 'complimentry medicine', which is not there to 'replace' conventional medicines but to compliment it. It's unfortunate that such people, like the 'Naturopath' in the article posted above, put up such bad names for Naturopaths because natural medicines actually do have their benefits.

Does anyone here take aspirin?
Or use Manuka honey for a sore throat?


Missy.
(just putting in my 2 cents worth :p )

[Dragon]

Missy,

Asprin, yes - good example.

I would much rather take an artificially produced aspirin tablet with the dosage precisely measured than a product made from willow bark where you cannot be so sure of what you're getting.

(Actually I prefer ibuprofen anyway, but no matter)

What do you see as the benefits of natural medicines?

[reprise]

Missy, naturopaths here are trained too. Most large universities here offer courses in naturopathy.

Unlike other forms of medical practise, though, there is no specific government standard to which naturopaths must be trained, no mandatory period during which they must practise under the supervision of a more qualified peer, and no requirement that they carry malpractice insurance.

It is the lack of Department of Health regulation of a group of people who have limited medical training and who are making largely clinical diagnoses which is extremely disturbing. There needs to be a legally enforceable standard of training, competency based testing and licensing, and mandatory liability insurance requirements applied to complementary therapy/alternative medicine practitioners.

athon and I would both agree that some naturopathic remedies have a measurable effect - that puts them in the class of a medicine and like all medicines they should be subject to legal standards of production and prescription. I quite literally had one naturopath decide which particular types of smelly crap were going to go in my tonic by holding a pendulum over her box of potions.

You'd better belief that if I'm going to be taking digitalis, or belladonna, or aspirin, I want to be damn sure that it's been manufactured to a predictable, consistent, dose - and that both it's safety and its efficacy has been proven.

[Zep]

As has been said before MANY times, there is no such thing as "alternative" or "complimentary" medicine. There is either stuff that has a known effect under specific conditions at various strengths, or it is quackery.

Of course, many of the "natural" medicines DO work. In fact, many current "mainstream" medicines, both ancient and new, come from "natural" sources, mostly plants. Examples: curare, digitalis, aspirin, cocaine, penicillin. But to ensure their efficacy and to minimise side-effects, their purity and dosages are controlled strictly so that doctors HAVE CONFIDENCE in what they are administering.

And no one in "mainstream" medicine has a problem with new treatments being found in old wives' remedies, PROVIDED they are proven properly first, and then properly controlled subsequently.

I think I should also like to distinguish between "naturopathy" and "homeopathy" too. There may be some overlap, but I personally see naturopathy at least being (just) passably realistic in that there is some actual "medicine" involved, whereas homeopathy is straight out ineffective money-grubbing quackery of the first order.

IMHO

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Zep
As has been said before MANY times, there is no such thing as "alternative" or "complimentary" medicine.


I disagree. Alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine are treatments that are not necessarily part of the standard medicial education, but have also been shown to have effects in many cases.

There certainly are things such as alternative, etc., or else I doubt there would be this big of a fuss about it in the scientific, medical, and skeptical communities.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I disagree. Alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine are treatments that are not necessarily part of the standard medicial education, but have also been shown to have effects in many cases.

There certainly are things such as alternative, etc., or else I doubt there would be this big of a fuss about it in the scientific, medical, and skeptical communities. [/B]

Zap is simply expressing his, and many other's, opinion that it shouldn't be called alternative or naturopathic. It should be called quackery.

Those "alternative" solutions don't make it into real, evidence-based medicine because it is quackery. You keep saying that they have been shown to have effects in many cases, but do you have any scientific, clinical peer-reviewed studies to back that up?

[athon]

Originally posted by Missy



I actually agree with what T'ai Chi is trying to say. Yes it is true that Naturopathy can be dangerous, if not used by a competent and qualified Naturopath. Here in New Zealand, I believe, Naturopaths are trained know their limitations and when to refer onto a doctor. Also, I believe that Naturopathy is not seen as an 'alternative medicine' but a 'complimentry medicine', which is not there to 'replace' conventional medicines but to compliment it. It's unfortunate that such people, like the 'Naturopath' in the article posted above, put up such bad names for Naturopaths because natural medicines actually do have their benefits.

Does anyone here take aspirin?
Or use Manuka honey for a sore throat?


Missy.
(just putting in my 2 cents worth :p )

All well and good, but there is yet to be in any country a regulatory board equivalent to a medical association. So while there are probably good naturopaths who understand the limitations to the best of current knowledge, there can also be naturopaths who are giving compounds which could do harm when in conjunction with other forms of medication.

Secondly, there is no legislative requirement (in Australia at least) for a naturopath to ask what medication a client is on. Not so for a GP.

Thirdly, even if a naturopath is so well read they know everything there is to know about their profession, that knowledge bank is limited. It is a dangerous field because of two things

1) the dosages within a given amount of plant or herb is unknown. You could be getting a third dose, the right dose, or a triple dose, and there is no sure way of telling.

2) Effects of many plants or herbs are little studied. With conventional drugs, all avenues possible are tested for - contradindicative effects, effects on various conditions, metabolic byproducts etc.

So while naturopathy might hold many secrets, which should provide huge benefits, they should not be provided until those secrets are revealed through proper means.

Athon

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by athon

..there is yet to be in any country a regulatory board equivalent to a medical association.


Have you done Google searches yet?

[reprise]

It's interesting to note the difference in the general health of populations which have access to only traditional medicine when compared to those which are largely reliant on Western medicine and to ask why the general health of those populations with limited access to the allopathic health care model is not of a comparable standard to that of the general population in Western societies.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by athon


Secondly, there is no legislative requirement (in Australia at least) for a naturopath to ask what medication a client is on. Not so for a GP.

Of course there isn't. Naturopathy, like many "alternative" medicines don't want teh regulation and legislation. I mean, if they actually had to do clinical studies for their claims and actually had to have science behind their claims.... they'd go bankrupt. Many of the herbs and other things they sell have no real effect at all. Unfortunately, some of the herbs do have adverse effects.

The naturopaths prey upon people that distrust "western" (evidence-based) medicine. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that these quacks don't want legislated.

[Zep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi I disagree. Alternative, complementary, and integrative medicine are treatments that are not necessarily part of the standard medicial education, but have also been shown to have effects in many cases.

Those that are "not necessarily part of the standard medical education" are not because they are quackery, not because of some bias in the medical profession. Procedures and drugs will be readily adopted if they work, and just as easily dropped if they are no longer effective or show no promise. The only reason various "alternative" medicines are not used are because they have failed the tests of efficacy. If they worked, the drug companies would be making millions from them. If they don't it's companies like Pan Pharmaceuticals in Australia who try to benefit from people's gullibility (look it up - not a pretty story).

There certainly are things such as alternative, etc., or else I doubt there would be this big of a fuss about it in the scientific, medical, and skeptical communities.

Rubbish. If they are effective and are tested and are controlled then they are NOT alternative anything, they are medicine. The "alternative" to "medicine" is "NOT medicine," pure and simple. There is no such thing as something being "a tiny bit medicine" or "mostly medicine" - the concept is quite silly.

The fuss, as you call it, is about practioners of snake-oil who somehow seem to think that their brand of coloured water made from brewed lawn clippings in a rusty 44-gallon pesticide drum is the magic cure for all known ills, then get upset when told it is more likely to be poisonous than helpful.

[EdipisReks]

right on, Zep.

[athon]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Have you done Google searches yet? [/B]

Meaning?

You have a habit, Tai Chi, of picking out a small point to argue, ignoring the crux of the statement. If I was to further define what I mean by a lack of MA, then going on my understanding of European, American, Chinese (believe it or not) and Australian health legislation (others I haven't explored, granted, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong in this case) there are no government run bodies that oversee and regulate naturopathy.

Is all of this a little overwhelming for you or something?

Athon

[reprise]

As athon has already pointed out, there are no legal restrictions on who can call themselves a "naturopath" (http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2464) in Australia and no legal standards of certification required of those using the title.

Victoria does have a Chinese Medicine Registration Board (http://www.cmrb.vic.gov.au/) which does regulate those using or dispensing traditional Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture in particular, it regulates who is legally allowed to use certain titles related to the practise of Chinese herbal medicine.

[athon]

Originally posted by reprise
As athon has already pointed out, there are no legal restrictions on who can call themselves a "naturopath" (http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2464) in Australia and no legal standards of certification required of those using the title.

Victoria does have a Chinese Medicine Registration Board (http://www.cmrb.vic.gov.au/) which does regulate those using or dispensing traditional Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture in particular, it regulates who is legally allowed to use certain titles related to the practise of Chinese herbal medicine.

Same in several other countries. But to my knowledge, none of them are government implemented or associated with a central medical association. So there is no legislature controlling what constitutes an effective medication and what doesn't, what 'naturopath' medications affects what 'conventional' medications, etc. And it's this which I am opposed to.

I don't disagree with research. I do disagree with implenting unproven or untested drugs in society.

Athon

[reprise]

Originally posted by athon


Same in several other countries. But to my knowledge, none of them are government implemented or associated with a central medical association. So there is no legislature controlling what constitutes an effective medication and what doesn't, what 'naturopath' medications affects what 'conventional' medications, etc. And it's this which I am opposed to.

I don't disagree with research. I do disagree with implenting unproven or untested drugs in society.

Athon

The Victorian board is a government body, and the Act (and amendments to other Acts which have been changed as a consequence of the Act's passage) does restrict the legal use of certain herbs used in Chinese herbal medicine to registered practitioners - those herbs have been scheduled and cannot be prescribed or dispensed by unregistered practitioners (who must have met the standards of training outlined in the Act in order to qualify for registration).

This is somewhat in line with the TGA restricting who can prescribe substances such as L-tryptophan and selenium. The legal requirements are less about the efficacy of the substances than they are about acknowledging that they are potentially unsafe in the hands of unqualified practitioners.

[Zep]

So much for accreditation...
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/qakatak/a-poxhouse.htm
Bureaucratic controls on ‘alternative’ therapies I recently registered two business names for Molly Pointer. One is the Pointer Naturopath Clinic, and the other is the Nisiesha Academy of Eastern and Natural Medicine (Nisiesha is Japanese for "false doctor"). Molly is my pet dog, and she is a Pointer, so she can now sell you a Diploma of Naturopathy from her own academy, and it is just as valid as any other. Theoretically, I could get my friends to claim money from health funds on the strength of an invoice with the Pointer Naturopath Clinic letterhead on it.

So what stops people defrauding the insurance companies this way? Accreditation. The insurance companies look at the pedigree of the practitioner, and have to be satisfied that the qualification did not come from a bogus institute such as Nisiesha. The simplest way to do that is to be sure the practitioner is a member of one of the Big Three professional bodies.

To be a member of one of those bodies, you have to produce a certificate from a training facility that has a government accredited course. I would have a hard time getting my dog’s academy past that one, and so would any other organisation who wasn’t fair dinkum, right?

Wrong! State governments are the authorities that give accreditation to the natural health colleges, and they have two areas that they look at. One is the number of fluorescent tubes, whiteboards, air conditioners, business plan etc. The other is the comprehensive range of the curriculum.

Nisiesha Academy would have to submit its curriculum to an ITAB (Industry Training Advisory Board) which is set up by the Department of Employment, Training and Further Education. The 19 people on the board in South Australian are representatives of the teaching profession, the trade unions, Public Service and so on.

There are no scientists on the board, they don’t question efficacy, and no effort is made to validate the medical claims of the various subjects being taught. It would be a lot of trouble, but not impossible, to get my dog’s Nisiesha Academy through the whole process, including the ITAB, without knowing anything at all about health. So where does the responsibility for the five people who couldn’t diagnose my chicken pox fall? At the feet of the state Ministers for Education. Once the Nisiesha Academy gets state government accreditation, the federal government automatically gives Austudy and Abstudy to its students. The Big Three natural health professional bodies would accept your goldfish as a member, and the major health funds would issue it with a provider number. You then just keep mailing bogus bills to them, and they keep sending money to your goldfish.