Guest guest Posted September 7, 2008 Report Share Posted September 7, 2008 This is log but well worth the read, thanks Tim. > > Dear all, > > The following article by Guy Gladstone recently appeared in Ipnosis psychotherapy journal (June 12th., 2008). Guy is happy to see a wide dissemination of his article. > > Although primarily this article relates to the psychotherapy/counselling fields, it is entirely pertinent to herbal medicine. Points 9, 10 and 11 are particularly interesting. > > Best regards, > Tim Lane. > > STATE REGULATION: ILLUSORY, UNETHICAL, AND HAZARDOUS - > > Eleven good reasons to oppose SR > Guy Gladstone > > Preface > > > The following arguments are laid out to establish a comprehensive basis for opposing state regulation of psychotherapy and counselling. Not all will speak to everyone but it would be strange if at least 8 out of 11 didn't. If you can adduce further 'good reasons' please publish them and let me know. > > > SR is currently projected for installation sometime between late 2009 and early 2011. Note SR through the Health Professions Council is intended to be regulation of function, of practice itself, not just title ('psychotherapist', 'counsellor'). Already there are significant currents of both discontent and outright opposition emerging within the umbrella organisations in tension with the party line that SR is both good and inevitable. I am monitoring the UKCP. What is the situation within BACP? It is important to make links with oppositional trends wherever you find them and to agitate/resist in whatever forum you have access to, - in print, online or at meetings, and this can be around the central platform that the status quo is good enough whereas what will ensue from SR is a disaster for the psy field. Heads in the sand bystander time is over. There is a window for derailing the SR project and countering its malignancy NOW. Later may prove too late. > > > Acknowledgement: With a different preface most of this text has already appeared in the Summer 2008 edition of 'Transformations', the journal of PCSR (Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social Responsibility). > > > > Eleven Good Reasons To Oppose SR > > > > 1) Surveillance Privacy Neutrality > > > SR undermines civil liberties. The subjection of the psy field to state-managed processes of audit and surveillance jeopardises practitioner neutrality and erodes the client's psychic space. Foucault identified how the panopticon effect operates as a disciplinary instrument because subjects (in this instance therapists as much as clients) never know when they are objects of its observatory or not and so eventually internalise the panopticon and act as if always under observation. Boal's political theatre for exorcising the cop in the head is becoming especially relevant for the psy field and provides a praxis for undoing the panopticon. > > > > 2) Diversity or Standardisation > > > The current diverse, local, voluntary and intuitively responsive ecology of the psy field is superior to and should be valued above the proposed compulsive and centralised control of standards administered by a tickbox bureaucracy. Standardisation will paralyse creativity in developing new forms of practice and will artificially and arbitrarily restrict research. has contrasted the diverse local 'metis' with the standard centralised 'techne' and chronicled techne's dedication to extinguishing metis. > > > > > > 3) Medical Model Hegemony > > > SR can only establish effective hegemony by means of distorting psychotherapeutic practice/praxis through bundling it all in under the medical model of mental illness, in the future likely to be glossed or hybridised with a WellBeing ideology imported from the corporate world. This violates the public's right to choose and access practitioners working within other paradigms e.g. personal development, co-operative enquiry, authentic humanistic psychology and unrecuperated psychoanalysis. > > > > 4) Output Regulation versus Input Regulation > > > For training institutes SR is a lifebelt to save them from sinking in the sea of a deregulated market. Obtaining a monopoly on a protected title (however the HPC wont guarantee this) is linked to exaggerating the role of input regulation (control of entry into practice) at the expense of output regulation which is of much less economic value to trainings. Prioritising the latter entails the active fostering of self-regulated integrity at the point of contact between therapist and client by means of ongoing peer review (Independent Practitioner Network), supervision, wider debating of ethics (which will bring the state's behaviour into view) and above all the education of the public in what to reasonably expect from therapists beyond the clichés. This last initiative will often run contrary to government prescription. It has been mostly dodged by the umbrella organisations (BPS, BPC, BABCP, UKCP and BACP perhaps less so) which prefer to focus on cultivating a more prestigious and self- serving culture of highly academised expertise. > > > > > > 5) Misallocation of Risk and Redress > > > There is no evidence that SR as a licensing procedure can achieve the elimination of risk and pre-emption of abuse that its controls and ideology suggest it can. A quick look at the HPC's publicly viewable stocks and gallows listings might be in order.The umbrella organisations are deeply complicitous with government agendas of 'being seen to be', as though it is fatal not to dance to a public relations tune. Overegging 'protection of the public' is linked to the spread of a professional false self. > > > The scale of risk is exaggerated (the transposed Shipman effect). There is insufficient evidence that therapists abuse clients on a scale that warrants the costs (financial, political, psychological and cultural) of state intervention in the form of the HPC. The HPC and Skills for Health are between them fostering a dangerous conflation of ethics and competencies under the bundleword of standards.Very very few therapists act unethically, all therapists have issues of competency at one time or another. However as Carl pointed out there have always been at least as many licensed charlatans and exploiters as unlicensed and the licensed ones are actually more dangerous because of their stronger credentials to be trusted. > > > If the position taken so far is too laissez faire the Counselling Society has suggested there may be a case for creating a fallback instrument of legal deterrence, that is a new category of criminal offence which would require criminal standards of proof termed 'Professional Abuse'; this being applicable only in cases of financial or sexual abuse or physical assault by a professional acting in a trust-based caring capacity (this charge could apply to other professions beyond the psy field). Proposals like this have the virtue of stealing the HPC's thunder and locating redress in its proper place with the judiciary instead of the executive and its HPC courtroom. Short of these extremes an expansion of independent mediation and resort to existing common law are surely the way forward for redress. > > > > 6) Core Values Erosion and Toxification > > > SR with the requirement to be registered directly with the HPC will subvert the values and varied forms of association that traditionally have held practitioners collectively in what is a consistently demanding work space; namely the values of responsibility, ownership, self-management and mutual care for the quality of colleague's work. The HPC will pull for STASI-style inducements to shop colleagues with corresponding reactive collusions to cover genuine mistakes rather than admit and clear them. Together these components of false compliance will accelerate a spread of fear, shame, cynicism and internalised oppression towards toxic levels. The deal on offer is this: follow NICE guidelines and adhere to NOS stipulations and the government will protect practitioners from the public and the litigation industry. Refuse these and regardless of your skill and experience the HPC will pillory you as a charlatan. > > > Thus the psy field is to be reconfigured according to the gospel that the government and the Department of Health knows what is best for you and your clients. Actually you are damned if you do and damned if you don't so it makes good sense to reject the whole caboodle of SR. This deal is the next move in the government strategy of breaking in to be followed by performance management of the next sector of the caring professions. After stuffing teachers and then doctors it will be psychological therapists turn next. > > > > 7) Delivering Government Agendas > Some sections of the psy field have been seduced by government interest (IAPT) in what they might contribute and don't appear to be overly concerned with the nature of the use government finds for their skills. There are obvious dangers, not least contagious loss of client trust, in being subpoenaed to serve government purposes. Opposition to SR supports the maintenance of a necessary distance from the state, even for those who have always been in NHS employment as the nature of the social contract is shifting. Compliance with SR will collapse the space for critiques that put the government's business in question and this is no doubt intended. The current moves to block further judicial enquiry into BAE style corruption are the writing on the wall. > > > Closer to home for the psy field is the Layard formula. Crudely it runs so: you are out of work because of your individual pathology which is costing the state too much in unemployment/ disability benefit. Ergo CBT therapy prescribed. Structural changes in society? Global level economic factors? How dare you suggest these are contributing to social misery with associated anxieties and depression! It is just conceivable that beyond the PR value of demonstrating some care rather than boosting the profits for Big Pharma's recently exposed largely ineffectual drug treatments lies a further agenda for IAPT to screen off more troublesome social/ economic analysis of links between distress and deprivation. > > > > 8) Corporate Appropriation > SR will install mechanisms of administration paralleling those in health and education which will enable and excite corporate designs upon the field (Virgin Asda and Tesco are already bidding for slices of the NHS) and a corresponding governmental receptivity to takeover. Here 'choice' and 'change' will be buzzwords that echo but actually bear no relation to what therapists might understand from these terms; instead these will be cheatwords that seem to be offering the public something while actually functioning as government signposts for the deregulated corporate drive to incorporate in order to open up new profit sectors in a service 'industry' (some already speak of the psy field in these terms). > > > Paternalistic government increasingly adopts the corporate promoting their wellbeing. SR is here knotted to appeasement of the fetish of the free market. A captured or training might itself be a loss leader but its transferential potentials will not be lost by the new proprietor who will proceed to sell holidays, mortgages or supermarket loyalty cards off the back of it. Current networks of informal gratis and beneficent referral safeguard the public seeking therapy from such incentivised insults. > > > 9) Bystander Trance > > > The message generated by the umbrella organisations that SR is inevitable constitutes a powerful trance induction towards a kind of helpless assent to SR that is equivalent to bystanding behaviour. This mantra of inevitability, frequently repeated by psychotherapists and counsellors, is pitched to simultaneously play on fear and relieve guilt and anxiety by legitimising apathy. For practitioners who purport to be in the business of reducing anxiety and helplessness such a stance is massively incongruent with their core assignment. > > > 10) Exhaustion, Despair and The State as Rescuer > > > Even with making allowance for the hypocrisy of those who, notwithstanding the above reasons for refusing SR, still see personal or institutional advantage in passively acquiescing to it, as indicated by the affecting of a noncommittal detachment or by adopting a position of reasonableness, pseudo amnesia or feigned ignorance as to what is going on, there remains a question about the root cause of the broader acquiescence, this regulationitus. One must ask why so many in the psy field seem to have turned their attention away from these issues, as though exhausted by something. One hypothesis is that after all the years of infighting between organisations much of the psy field is in some underacknowledged despair over its capacity to live and let live, to live with difference and to tolerate diversity of theory and practice without trying to steal a march on the other. This political despair may be the Achilles heel, the reason no organisation can trust the others not to cut a deal with the state to gain advantage and favours (the UKCP rationale for maintaining a so-called 'ringside view'). > > Furthermore this scenario would suggest a corresponding unconscious fantasy in which the state is configured as the necessary authoritarian parent who restores order, enforces agreement and rescues the feuding children from destroying each other. That it wont and anyway cant actually do this is beside the point. Such infantilism is actually an appalling indictment of a profession that makes extensive claims regarding its capacity to help clients yet cant help itself as a whole field when it comes to ordering internal and external relations at a political level. That said, currently the UKCP, faced with the exclusion of at least half its registrants (not to mention several thousand trainees) from the privilege of entering the HPC compound, on the grounds that Skills for Health can only recognise this remainder,- which includes the largest section of the UKCP (HIPS), as derivative variants of the psychoanalytic/psychodynamic, the cognitive behavioural and the family systemic, has a major identity crisis on its hands. In certain reactionary parts of the psy field this is a very gratifying scenario, one they have waited years for. It remains to be seen whether this late in the day order from above that Sections organise their footsoldiers (sorry registrants) to fire off letters of protest to their MP a) is sufficiently complied with to produce a significant volley and whether MPs in turn raise enough questions for the Department of Health to beat a retreat rather than simply ignore it on the principle that regulators regulate, they don't negotiate, especially when policy has already been decided elsewhere. > > > 11) Conjointly Foreclosed Debate > > > And so in the light of the above the historical conjoint foreclosure of proper debate and full discussion of what is at stake by both the umbrella organisations and the state has to be named. Since both the state and most of the psy field associations are dominator organisations, structured hierarchically to promote power over as opposed to power with, this is hardly surprising. Proper debate however would be extensive and lateral, decentralised, from the bottom up, practitioner and yes, client/user group driven, the discussion itself congruent with the activity it is all about, the results of this discussion pooled by delegates in the true meaning i.e. subject to right of recall by their constituencies should they start to represent other interests. PCSR to its credit is attempting to launch a discussion that will meet some of these criteria. > In the last 10 years three full-length books (see references) and numerous articles have been published that argue the case against state regulation of psychological therapies. No comparable 'case for' has ever been articulated and if it has it has yet to be produced for public scrutiny. Apart from the active rubbishing of Mowbray's seminal work " The Case Against Psychotherapy Registration " by an early UKCP Chair and Fellow of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr Pokorny, who was clearly horrified by the detailed thoroughly researched deconstruction of the UKCP and SR, the case against has simply been ignored as if many wished it would just go away. Which it hasn't and if anything it has become more cogent than ever with recent developments in the governments agenda. The 'case for' doesn't appear to have got much further than " state regulation is a good thing for the protection of the public so repeat that after me " . > > This asymmetrical phenomenon should alert observers from outside the psy field as well as those within it to the fact that something has been avoided, debate has been refused because one side cant actually muster a sustainable argument or cant come clean or some mixture of the two. Perhaps above all debate is foreclosed because values are at the heart of the matter and there is resistance to full spectrum declaration. Instead we get mystification, typified by the continuing both careless and deliberate muddling of statutory registration (the project of the fortunately failed 2002 Alderdice parliamentary bill) with state regulation, a very different beast. > > > Conclusion > > > After round about 85 years in Britain of freedom from state interference it seems the largely bemused or even apathetic psy field in Britain wont know what it will lose until after it has gone. After which that freedom will be far harder to restore. The state and its collaborators from within the psy field lack the wisdom that pertains to knowing when to leave well alone. Those who confront and refuse SR can take heart from the fact that the body, the unconscious, the transpersonal, the awareness of power relations and indeed love and relationship itself, none of these can be computed in Skills for Health's sorry calculus. In other words very large parts of the therapeutic process and its context will necessarily escape the annexation being attempted by the state and it's collaborators and this gives grounds for hope but not quietism. > > > > References > > > Mowbray, . The Case Against Psychotherapy Registration. A Conservation Issue for the Human Potential Movement. Trans Marginal Press 1995. > House, and Totton, Nick. Editors. Implausible Professions. Arguments for Pluralism and Autonomy in Psychotherapy and Counselling. PCCS Books 1997. > Postle, Denis. Regulating the Psychological Therapies. From Taxonomy to Taxidermy. PCCS Books 2007. > Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. Translation. Vintage 1977. > , C. Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press 1998. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2008 Report Share Posted September 7, 2008 Sorry, NOS is what? >Together these components of false compliance will accelerate a spread of fear, shame, cynicism and internalised oppression towards toxic levels. The deal on >offer is this: follow NICE guidelines and adhere to NOS stipulations and the government will protect practitioners from the public and the litigation industry. >Refuse these and regardless of your skill and experience the HPC will pillory you as a charlatan. Cheers Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) Medical Herbalist ============================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2008 Report Share Posted September 7, 2008 National Occupational Standards, I think. Guy > > Sorry, NOS is what? > > >Together these components of false compliance will accelerate a > spread of fear, shame, cynicism and internalised oppression towards > toxic levels. The deal on >offer is this: follow NICE guidelines > and adhere to NOS stipulations and the government will protect > practitioners from the public and the litigation industry. >Refuse > these and regardless of your skill and experience the HPC will > pillory you as a charlatan. > > Cheers > > Graham White, B. Sc. (Herb. Med.) > Medical Herbalist > ============================= > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent events that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK government regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that there is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some of the process. On the other side, people are worried about what regulation will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are allowed to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain herbs. However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no training or knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label prescribing. This gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that they believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to see a scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain herbs or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners continue to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce for the goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at work here and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists or homoeopaths). One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do not sign away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US in the latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong with high percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a desire to be approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted conventional medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a generation, homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only now recovering some hundred years later. It is important that we work together whatever our practice or therapy. I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This discussion group is a good example of exchanging ideas between practitioners. Regards Gascoigne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Hi , I share your concerns and one of my concerns if the INCREASING control this government exerts and the lack of influence the public has on government policy i.e. it will go ahead and do what it wants - its actually really concerning what's happening. Maybe we will have a change of government. In relation to SR what affect might this have, will the government regulate? I personally doubt it as it has no reason to (financial or otherwise) but the pharmaceutical industry has huge power and influence. Even if regulation does happen I doubt very much it will be anything like the form presented in the Steering Group and to believe it will is, I think, naive. I too am concerned that because of a desire to be regulated restricive measures will be accepted - and are already being accepted. If SR doesn't happen then control can be exerted through changing the 1968 Medicines Act by reducing our access to practice under it or limiting our rights to access all herbs or treat all conditions for example. The longer this SR process goes on the more controlling this country becomes - and it is continually delayed. In 2011 if a trap door is pulled under herbalists who will listen or have power to influence the government? And if people are struggling to put food on the table at the time will they be concerned with the plight of herbalists? No, I am not scaremongering as has been suggested, I am just saying be careful and wake up - " Trust in Allah but tie up your camel " and all that. Not that I do not believe in the power of the people - I do. Verge > > Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent events > that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK government > regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that there > is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some of the > process. On the other side, people are worried about what regulation > will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are allowed > to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. > > At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain herbs. > However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no training or > knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label prescribing. This > gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that they > believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to see a > scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain herbs > or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners continue > to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce for the > goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at work here > and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists or > homoeopaths). > > One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do not sign > away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US in the > latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong with high > percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a desire to be > approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted conventional > medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a generation, > homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only now > recovering some hundred years later. > > It is important that we work together whatever our practice or therapy. > I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between > practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This discussion > group is a good example of exchanging ideas between practitioners. > > > Regards > > > Gascoigne > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Dear and everyone This forum has always allowed for the discussion of politics and rightly so. Politics as it relates to the practice of herbal medicine. I think a couple of recent posts have made people think that talking politics is completely out of order. What is not acceptable is using the forum to discuss issues or matters that relate to any specific professional body, no matter which one that is. It is disrespectful to the members of other professional bodies to have discussions relating to one body discussed as if those people don’t exist or have no feelings– there is a place for discussing those matters and it is not on a public forum, public as in non-member specific. I am fairly sure that each PA has its own membership only forum where internal matters can be discussed if they wish. If they don't it is none of my business. It is also disrespectful to the members of the particular body to have matters that relate to them and their membership discussed in a public forum. So, can I please ask everyone to show some respect to everyone on the list and abide by the list terms and conditions? An enormous amount of work has already been done, cooperatively between PAs, . All this information information is available from each PA. A scope of practice has been written and it is as broad as it could be. It does not narrow or close off any aspect of the herbal profession. I don’t think there is one person who has been working on regulatory issues who would accept anything that curtailed our practice. Everyone working on that is in fact a herbalist just like everyone else so why on earth would they accept something that restricted themselves? Regulation also allows for, and in fact requires the development of the profession, and actively promotes the profession in the public arena. The parts of medicines legislation that indicate ‘herbalist’ but without a definition of what a herbalist is, cannot be enforced so there is no restriction on the use of certain herbs. However, if the word ‘herbalist’ (with all its variant forms) becomes enshrined in UK law, it will mean that the restriction on prescribing will apply to anyone who does not meet the definition of the term‘ herbalist’. So doctors would not be able to use them unless they had been trained to do so. Perhaps one way to look at the American experience is to consider the huge responsibility we have in the UK. We have colleagues, some of them on this list, who practice illegally because they live outside the UK or Ireland. At least we don’t have to do that here. If we gain legal status here, then herbalists all over the world will be in a position to say herbal medicine is a legally recognised profession in the UK and we want that in our country too. That is not to say I look at the world through rose tinted spectacles or that I have high, unreachable ideals. I can be as sceptical as anyone. It has to be regulation that meets the profession’s requirements. Best wishes ======================================== Message Received: Nov 02 2008, 02:00 PM To: ukherbal-list Cc: Subject: Re: SR Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent events that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK government regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that there is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some of the process. On the other side, people are worried about what regulation will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are allowed to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain herbs. However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no training or knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label prescribing. This gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that they believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to see a scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain herbs or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners continue to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce for the goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at work here and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists or homoeopaths). One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do not sign away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US in the latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong with high percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a desire to be approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted conventional medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a generation, homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only now recovering some hundred years later. It is important that we work together whatever our practice or therapy. I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This discussion group is a good example of exchanging ideas between practitioners. Regards Gascoigne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Dear , Thank you for your message. I agree that respect is important, if not essential, and I don't think I have seen any disrespect in this forum. Speaking personally, anything I say here, I say to members of my professional association as I believe that an open discussion is very helpful for all concerned. I am constantly in awe of people working within the profession dealing with national and European regulations! It is not work I could do...... Interestingly, I received a message today from the Alliance for Natural Health - http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/protect-traditional-medicinal-cultures - which discusses European legislation and its attitude to herbal medicines derived from traditional cultures. Regarding Chinese herbal medicines, many of the patents currently available are likely to disappear in 2011 because they will not meet the (currently) proposed regulations. We live in dark times and it is important to be alert as to moves which would seek to restrict our work or to restrict the public's access to holistic medicines. I also tend to take an optimistic long view about alternative medicines. My herbal teacher, a third generation Oriental practitioner, quoted the old Chinese saying, that many chopsticks cannot be broken. The more we work together, of whatever tradition, the more we enlist public support, then the more beneficial the outcome. Regards, Email: mailto:drgascoigne@... Web: http://www.drgascoigne.com Stannard wrote: > > Dear and everyone > > This forum has always allowed for the discussion of politics and > rightly so. > Politics as it relates to the practice of herbal medicine. > I think a couple of recent posts have made people think that talking > politics is completely out of order. > > What is not acceptable is using the forum to discuss issues or matters > that relate to any specific professional body, no matter which one > that is. > > It is disrespectful to the members of other professional bodies to > have discussions relating to one body discussed as if those people > don’t exist or have no feelings– there is a place for discussing those > matters and it is not on a public forum, public as in non-member > specific. I am fairly sure that each PA has its own membership only > forum where internal matters can be discussed if they wish. If they > don't it is none of my business. > > It is also disrespectful to the members of the particular body to have > matters that relate to them and their membership discussed in a public > forum. > > So, can I please ask everyone to show some respect to everyone on the > list and abide by the list terms and conditions? > > An enormous amount of work has already been done, cooperatively > between PAs, . > All this information information is available from each PA. > > A scope of practice has been written and it is as broad as it could > be. It does not narrow or close off any aspect of the herbal > profession. I don’t think there is one person who has been working on > regulatory issues who would accept anything that curtailed our > practice. Everyone working on that is in fact a herbalist just like > everyone else so why on earth would they accept something that > restricted themselves? > Regulation also allows for, and in fact requires the development of > the profession, and actively promotes the profession in the public arena. > > The parts of medicines legislation that indicate ‘herbalist’ but > without a definition of what a herbalist is, cannot be enforced so > there is no restriction on the use of certain herbs. However, if the > word ‘herbalist’ (with all its variant forms) becomes enshrined in UK > law, it will mean that the restriction on prescribing will apply to > anyone who does not meet the definition of the term‘ herbalist’. So > doctors would not be able to use them unless they had been trained to > do so. > > Perhaps one way to look at the American experience is to consider the > huge responsibility we have in the UK. We have colleagues, some of > them on this list, who practice illegally because they live outside > the UK or Ireland. At least we don’t have to do that here. If we gain > legal status here, then herbalists all over the world will be in a > position to say herbal medicine is a legally recognised profession in > the UK and we want that in our country too. > > That is not to say I look at the world through rose tinted spectacles > or that I have high, unreachable ideals. I can be as sceptical as > anyone. It has to be regulation that meets the profession’s requirements. > > Best wishes > > > ======================================== > Message Received: Nov 02 2008, 02:00 PM > From: " Gascoigne " <gasco@... <mailto:gasco%40eircom.net>> > To: ukherbal-list <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com> > Cc: > Subject: Re: SR > > Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent events > that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK government > regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that there > is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some of the > process. On the other side, people are worried about what regulation > will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are allowed > to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. > > At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain herbs. > However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no training or > knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label prescribing. This > gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that they > believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to see a > scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain herbs > or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners continue > to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce for the > goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at work here > and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists or > homoeopaths). > > One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do not sign > away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US in the > latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong with high > percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a desire to be > approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted conventional > medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a generation, > homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only now > recovering some hundred years later. > > It is important that we work together whatever our practice or therapy. > I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between > practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This discussion > group is a good example of exchanging ideas between practitioners. > > > Regards > > > Gascoigne > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Hi I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you were disrespectful in any way. That is far from being the case. When this forum was set up it had a large number of NIMH members on it who discussed NIMH business all the time. That is unfair to people who are not NIMH members, in particular. So NIMH set up its own members only forum where things that related to NIMH could be discussed. Also there was a lot of " NIMH Council bashing " . Unfair to everyone. Every so often, I have pointed out to everyone that it is not right to discuss matters relating to a particular body in a public arena - I know you didn't. However I thought you were apologising for bringing up politics which is a completely reasonable topic to discuss on the forum and I simply wanted to explain that politics relating to herbal medicine (this is a herbal forum) is perfectly OK. The forum in 'non-denominational' if you like, so anything relating to a particular group, has to be left out. I've said many times - but probably not anywhere in earshot of you - man has always achieved more by cooperation than competition. We have enough to contest with in the world, and arguing amongst ourselves only helps those who would like to see the end of us. That old adage - divide and conquer - couldn't be truer. If anyone wants to destroy herbal medicine all they have to do is sit back and watch while we do it for them. I learnt to play poker when I was 6 (family holidays) so I've always kept a watchful eye on 'the other players' in everything I do. I remember 1994 very vividly. It doesn't make me paranoid though. I sincerely hope that doesn't come across as a sermon! I don't post much on the forum as I'm usually too busy, so don't think me rude if I don't reply, please. Best wishes ======================================== Message Received: Nov 05 2008, 08:54 PM To: ukherbal-list Cc: Subject: Re: Re: SR Dear , Thank you for your message. I agree that respect is important, if not essential, and I don't think I have seen any disrespect in this forum. Speaking personally, anything I say here, I say to members of my professional association as I believe that an open discussion is very helpful for all concerned. I am constantly in awe of people working within the profession dealing with national and European regulations! It is not work I could do...... Interestingly, I received a message today from the Alliance for Natural Health - http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/protect-traditional-medicinal-cultures - which discusses European legislation and its attitude to herbal medicines derived from traditional cultures. Regarding Chinese herbal medicines, many of the patents currently available are likely to disappear in 2011 because they will not meet the (currently) proposed regulations. We live in dark times and it is important to be alert as to moves which would seek to restrict our work or to restrict the public's access to holistic medicines. I also tend to take an optimistic long view about alternative medicines. My herbal teacher, a third generation Oriental practitioner, quoted the old Chinese saying, that many chopsticks cannot be broken. The more we work together, of whatever tradition, the more we enlist public support, then the more beneficial the outcome. Regards, Email: mailto:drgascoigne@... Web: http://www.drgascoigne.com Stannard wrote: > > Dear and everyone > > This forum has always allowed for the discussion of politics and > rightly so. > Politics as it relates to the practice of herbal medicine. > I think a couple of recent posts have made people think that talking > politics is completely out of order. > > What is not acceptable is using the forum to discuss issues or matters > that relate to any specific professional body, no matter which one > that is. > > It is disrespectful to the members of other professional bodies to > have discussions relating to one body discussed as if those people > don’t exist or have no feelings– there is a place for discussing those > matters and it is not on a public forum, public as in non-member > specific. I am fairly sure that each PA has its own membership only > forum where internal matters can be discussed if they wish. If they > don't it is none of my business. > > It is also disrespectful to the members of the particular body to have > matters that relate to them and their membership discussed in a public > forum. > > So, can I please ask everyone to show some respect to everyone on the > list and abide by the list terms and conditions? > > An enormous amount of work has already been done, cooperatively > between PAs, . > All this information information is available from each PA. > > A scope of practice has been written and it is as broad as it could > be. It does not narrow or close off any aspect of the herbal > profession. I don’t think there is one person who has been working on > regulatory issues who would accept anything that curtailed our > practice. Everyone working on that is in fact a herbalist just like > everyone else so why on earth would they accept something that > restricted themselves? > Regulation also allows for, and in fact requires the development of > the profession, and actively promotes the profession in the public arena. > > The parts of medicines legislation that indicate ‘herbalist’ but > without a definition of what a herbalist is, cannot be enforced so > there is no restriction on the use of certain herbs. However, if the > word ‘herbalist’ (with all its variant forms) becomes enshrined in UK > law, it will mean that the restriction on prescribing will apply to > anyone who does not meet the definition of the term‘ herbalist’. So > doctors would not be able to use them unless they had been trained to > do so. > > Perhaps one way to look at the American experience is to consider the > huge responsibility we have in the UK. We have colleagues, some of > them on this list, who practice illegally because they live outside > the UK or Ireland. At least we don’t have to do that here. If we gain > legal status here, then herbalists all over the world will be in a > position to say herbal medicine is a legally recognised profession in > the UK and we want that in our country too. > > That is not to say I look at the world through rose tinted spectacles > or that I have high, unreachable ideals. I can be as sceptical as > anyone. It has to be regulation that meets the profession’s requirements. > > Best wishes > > > ======================================== > Message Received: Nov 02 2008, 02:00 PM > From: " Gascoigne " <gasco@... <mailto:gasco%40eircom.net>> > To: ukherbal-list <mailto:ukherbal-list%40yahoogroups.com> > Cc: > Subject: Re: SR > > Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent events > that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK government > regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that there > is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some of the > process. On the other side, people are worried about what regulation > will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are allowed > to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. > > At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain herbs. > However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no training or > knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label prescribing. This > gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that they > believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to see a > scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain herbs > or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners continue > to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce for the > goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at work here > and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists or > homoeopaths). > > One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do not sign > away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US in the > latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong with high > percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a desire to be > approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted conventional > medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a generation, > homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only now > recovering some hundred years later. > > It is important that we work together whatever our practice or therapy. > I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between > practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This discussion > group is a good example of exchanging ideas between practitioners. > > > Regards > > > Gascoigne > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Dear , a few points: just critercism of Council practice is not " NIMH Council bashing " . A position of authority comes with responsibiltiy to look at one's actions and adjust accordingly and accountability - which I do not see. 'They are doing their best as volunteers' is not good enough. I would say that competition is not the problem in respect to SR but perhaps that is your particular 'baby'; maybe you need to be right and have to defend your position - I do not know. To have alarm bells ringing very loudly in one's ear in respect to where one group of herbalists want to take all of us is nothing to do with competition but everything to do with extreme concern. I, and not one person I know who oppose what you and NIMH & other Councils are pushing for are coming from competitiveness. I, personally, would not allow myself to take actions based on sibling rivalry. I certainly would not spend so much time & energy fighting something or trying to open people's eyes (voluntarily) for such base a motive. It is dismissive and insulting to suggest we would. Greater fools I have seen outside of our 'group' than in it. Is the only alternative to fighting and arguing to agree with you and your colleagues? My heart and my spirit and my honesty and integrity cannot allow me to do that. We are not in 1994 we are in 2008 the screw has tightened; if people think they can do what they did then to the same affect if necessary I would say do not bank on it. SR & THMPD does and will infringe on our freedom to practice - more than you dreamed was possible - but hey, read the small print! As to those that would like to destroy herbal medicine - they already are watching whilst those who want SR do their bidding consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. You are going along with exactly what they want, allowing the legislative changes that they are engineering. You (and others) are being hoodwinked, skillfully manipulated, charmed, flattered, coerced. Status (that you and others want) is not a worthy motive and will take us all to a tricky predicament. But you and others do not see it. Maybe a game tougher than poker might have sharpened yours' and others' wits a bit more cause I am clear that I see things that you and other simply do not see and I shake my head in disbelief. Maybe because in my childhood I played a much tougher game than poker and it sharpened my wits, an enabled me to be very good at studying shadow. Regards, PS If you have any critercism of me please address me directly rather than namelesly as you appear to have done previously. > > > > Dear and everyone > > > > This forum has always allowed for the discussion of politics and > > rightly so. > > Politics as it relates to the practice of herbal medicine. > > I think a couple of recent posts have made people think that talking > > politics is completely out of order. > > > > What is not acceptable is using the forum to discuss issues or matters > > that relate to any specific professional body, no matter which one > > that is. > > > > It is disrespectful to the members of other professional bodies to > > have discussions relating to one body discussed as if those people > > don’t exist or have no feelings†" there is a place for discussing those > > matters and it is not on a public forum, public as in non-member > > specific. I am fairly sure that each PA has its own membership only > > forum where internal matters can be discussed if they wish. If they > > don't it is none of my business. > > > > It is also disrespectful to the members of the particular body to have > > matters that relate to them and their membership discussed in a public > > forum. > > > > So, can I please ask everyone to show some respect to everyone on the > > list and abide by the list terms and conditions? > > > > An enormous amount of work has already been done, cooperatively > > between PAs, . > > All this information information is available from each PA. > > > > A scope of practice has been written and it is as broad as it could > > be. It does not narrow or close off any aspect of the herbal > > profession. I don’t think there is one person who has been working on > > regulatory issues who would accept anything that curtailed our > > practice. Everyone working on that is in fact a herbalist just like > > everyone else so why on earth would they accept something that > > restricted themselves? > > Regulation also allows for, and in fact requires the development of > > the profession, and actively promotes the profession in the public arena. > > > > The parts of medicines legislation that indicate ‘herbalist’ but > > without a definition of what a herbalist is, cannot be enforced so > > there is no restriction on the use of certain herbs. However, if the > > word ‘herbalist’ (with all its variant forms) becomes enshrined in UK > > law, it will mean that the restriction on prescribing will apply to > > anyone who does not meet the definition of the term‘ herbalist’. So > > doctors would not be able to use them unless they had been trained to > > do so. > > > > Perhaps one way to look at the American experience is to consider the > > huge responsibility we have in the UK. We have colleagues, some of > > them on this list, who practice illegally because they live outside > > the UK or Ireland. At least we don’t have to do that here. If we gain > > legal status here, then herbalists all over the world will be in a > > position to say herbal medicine is a legally recognised profession in > > the UK and we want that in our country too. > > > > That is not to say I look at the world through rose tinted spectacles > > or that I have high, unreachable ideals. I can be as sceptical as > > anyone. It has to be regulation that meets the profession’s requirements. > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > ======================================== > > Message Received: Nov 02 2008, 02:00 PM > > From: " Gascoigne " <gasco@... <mailto:gasco%40eircom.net>> > > To: ukherbal-list <mailto:ukherbal-list% 40yahoogroups.com> > > Cc: > > Subject: Re: SR > > > > Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent events > > that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK government > > regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that there > > is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some of the > > process. On the other side, people are worried about what regulation > > will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are allowed > > to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. > > > > At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain herbs. > > However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no training or > > knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label prescribing. This > > gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that they > > believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to see a > > scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain herbs > > or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners continue > > to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce for the > > goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at work here > > and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists or > > homoeopaths). > > > > One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do not sign > > away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US in the > > latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong with high > > percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a desire to be > > approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted conventional > > medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a generation, > > homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only now > > recovering some hundred years later. > > > > It is important that we work together whatever our practice or therapy. > > I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between > > practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This discussion > > group is a good example of exchanging ideas between practitioners. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Gascoigne > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Dear I am a member of the Unified Register of Herbal Practitioners (URHP) and have just retired as their Registrar (a voluntary post to which I was elected by members present at the AGM). I really do feel that the sort of sentiment expressed in your email to Stannard is accusatory, non-constructive, inaccurate and injust. And actually rather unkind. Voluntary members from all the herbal associations spend an inordinate amount of their own time attending EHTPA meetings etc as well as their own committee meetings and work extremely hard to understand and favourably influence decision making about all herbalists' future in the UK. However much you may disagree with the work done on your behalf, committee members are elected by their association members and in a democratic society, not everyone is going to be satisfied with the results. The answer is to turn up to every AGM and council meetings and to vote; make your opinion known and maybe to put yourself forward for election as a council member. The sentiments expressed in your email are not everybody's and you need to ensure that your facts are correct and that your valid views do not descend into personal attack and criticism. Boys URHP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 Dear It seems to me that you have misunderstood my post to . The possibility of misunderstanding can happen with email as we all know. It seems you have taken my comments and construed them as some kind of criticism of you personally. I would not make indirect or implied criticism as you seem to suggest I do. If I had something to say to you, or a comment to make on something you said, I would do it directly. If you read my post closely I think you will see that I was talking in historic terms about the forum, as I believe that was not a participant from its inception. I am sorry if my post did not make that historical perspective crystal clear and led to your misunderstanding. You could have asked me for clarification rather than making an erroneous assumption. Even allowing for such a mistake, I am offended by the tone of your message. Best wishes ======================================== Message Received: Nov 07 2008, 05:07 PM To: ukherbal-list Cc: Subject: Re: SR Dear , a few points: just critercism of Council practice is not " NIMH Council bashing " . A position of authority comes with responsibiltiy to look at one's actions and adjust accordingly and accountability - which I do not see. 'They are doing their best as volunteers' is not good enough. I would say that competition is not the problem in respect to SR but perhaps that is your particular 'baby'; maybe you need to be right and have to defend your position - I do not know. To have alarm bells ringing very loudly in one's ear in respect to where one group of herbalists want to take all of us is nothing to do with competition but everything to do with extreme concern. I, and not one person I know who oppose what you and NIMH & other Councils are pushing for are coming from competitiveness. I, personally, would not allow myself to take actions based on sibling rivalry. I certainly would not spend so much time & energy fighting something or trying to open people's eyes (voluntarily) for such base a motive. It is dismissive and insulting to suggest we would. Greater fools I have seen outside of our 'group' than in it. Is the only alternative to fighting and arguing to agree with you and your colleagues? My heart and my spirit and my honesty and integrity cannot allow me to do that. We are not in 1994 we are in 2008 the screw has tightened; if people think they can do what they did then to the same affect if necessary I would say do not bank on it. SR & THMPD does and will infringe on our freedom to practice - more than you dreamed was possible - but hey, read the small print! As to those that would like to destroy herbal medicine - they already are watching whilst those who want SR do their bidding consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. You are going along with exactly what they want, allowing the legislative changes that they are engineering. You (and others) are being hoodwinked, skillfully manipulated, charmed, flattered, coerced. Status (that you and others want) is not a worthy motive and will take us all to a tricky predicament. But you and others do not see it. Maybe a game tougher than poker might have sharpened yours' and others' wits a bit more cause I am clear that I see things that you and other simply do not see and I shake my head in disbelief. Maybe because in my childhood I played a much tougher game than poker and it sharpened my wits, an enabled me to be very good at studying shadow. Regards, PS If you have any critercism of me please address me directly rather than namelesly as you appear to have done previously. > > > > Dear and everyone > > > > This forum has always allowed for the discussion of politics and > > rightly so. > > Politics as it relates to the practice of herbal medicine. > > I think a couple of recent posts have made people think that talking > > politics is completely out of order. > > > > What is not acceptable is using the forum to discuss issues or matters > > that relate to any specific professional body, no matter which one > > that is. > > > > It is disrespectful to the members of other professional bodies to > > have discussions relating to one body discussed as if those people > > don’t exist or have no feelings†" there is a place for discussing those > > matters and it is not on a public forum, public as in non-member > > specific. I am fairly sure that each PA has its own membership only > > forum where internal matters can be discussed if they wish. If they > > don't it is none of my business. > > > > It is also disrespectful to the members of the particular body to have > > matters that relate to them and their membership discussed in a public > > forum. > > > > So, can I please ask everyone to show some respect to everyone on the > > list and abide by the list terms and conditions? > > > > An enormous amount of work has already been done, cooperatively > > between PAs, . > > All this information information is available from each PA. > > > > A scope of practice has been written and it is as broad as it could > > be. It does not narrow or close off any aspect of the herbal > > profession. I don’t think there is one person who has been working on > > regulatory issues who would accept anything that curtailed our > > practice. Everyone working on that is in fact a herbalist just like > > everyone else so why on earth would they accept something that > > restricted themselves? > > Regulation also allows for, and in fact requires the development of > > the profession, and actively promotes the profession in the public arena. > > > > The parts of medicines legislation that indicate ‘herbalist’ but > > without a definition of what a herbalist is, cannot be enforced so > > there is no restriction on the use of certain herbs. However, if the > > word ‘herbalist’ (with all its variant forms) becomes enshrined in UK > > law, it will mean that the restriction on prescribing will apply to > > anyone who does not meet the definition of the term‘ herbalist’. So > > doctors would not be able to use them unless they had been trained to > > do so. > > > > Perhaps one way to look at the American experience is to consider the > > huge responsibility we have in the UK. We have colleagues, some of > > them on this list, who practice illegally because they live outside > > the UK or Ireland. At least we don’t have to do that here. If we gain > > legal status here, then herbalists all over the world will be in a > > position to say herbal medicine is a legally recognised profession in > > the UK and we want that in our country too. > > > > That is not to say I look at the world through rose tinted spectacles > > or that I have high, unreachable ideals. I can be as sceptical as > > anyone. It has to be regulation that meets the profession’s requirements. > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > ======================================== > > Message Received: Nov 02 2008, 02:00 PM > > From: " Gascoigne " <gasco@... <mailto:gasco%40eircom.net>> > > To: ukherbal-list <mailto:ukherbal-list% 40yahoogroups.com> > > Cc: > > Subject: Re: SR > > > > Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent events > > that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK government > > regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that there > > is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some of the > > process. On the other side, people are worried about what regulation > > will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are allowed > > to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. > > > > At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain herbs. > > However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no training or > > knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label prescribing. This > > gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that they > > believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to see a > > scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain herbs > > or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners continue > > to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce for the > > goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at work here > > and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists or > > homoeopaths). > > > > One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do not sign > > away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US in the > > latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong with high > > percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a desire to be > > approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted conventional > > medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a generation, > > homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only now > > recovering some hundred years later. > > > > It is important that we work together whatever our practice or therapy. > > I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between > > practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This discussion > > group is a good example of exchanging ideas between practitioners. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Gascoigne > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Dear , I did not write a personal attack, it was a political post / thread with a view point and tone that I disagreed and took some exception to (as one does)so I responded. Why is it that pro-regulatory 'speak' or propaganda is considered to be in a catagory beyond critersism, 'the ultimate paternalistic truth' and always defended to the hilt (with arguements that do not hold water and 'facts' that are not true, usually with the inclusion of how much work individual members have put into pushing, promoting, working towards SR - which is ultimately immaterial if the time and energy spent ends up being detrimental to herbalists and herbal medicine) and those that critercise it or question its validity or sanity are deemed to be negative, argumentative, competative, foolish, fiends etc etc? I stick by the 'facts' as I have presented - I hope other herbalists see the situation more clearly before it is too late. This is not a personal attack on anyone I only write in the hope that others wake up and see the situation for what it is - not what they hope it is. I cannot and will not be silent out of fear of offending someone. Regards, > > Dear > > I am a member of the Unified Register of Herbal Practitioners (URHP) and have just retired > as their Registrar (a voluntary post to which I was elected by members present at the AGM). > > I really do feel that the sort of sentiment expressed in your email to Stannard > is accusatory, non-constructive, inaccurate and injust. > > And actually rather unkind. > > Voluntary members from all the herbal associations spend an inordinate amount of their own > time attending EHTPA meetings etc as well as their own committee meetings and work extremely > hard to understand and favourably influence decision making about all herbalists' future in the UK. > > However much you may disagree with the work done on your behalf, committee members are elected > by their association members and in a democratic society, not everyone is going to be satisfied with > the results. The answer is to turn up to every AGM and council meetings and to vote; make your > opinion known and maybe to put yourself forward for election as a council member. > > The sentiments expressed in your email are not everybody's and you need to ensure that your facts > are correct and that your valid views do not descend into personal attack and criticism. > > Boys > URHP > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Dear , no I did not take it personally nor meant it particularly personally (though I did not like your tone) nor do I think I misread the post. In reference to responding directly to me that was in regards to a previous post you made ages ago re:homeopathic hospital which I could not be bothered to repond to, in which you appear to suggest I was on the verge of supposedly denigrading a member yet again!! Though you misunderstood me in fact. I am not bothered about that at all but just prefer straight communication. Regards, > > > > > > Dear and everyone > > > > > > This forum has always allowed for the discussion of politics and > > > rightly so. > > > Politics as it relates to the practice of herbal medicine. > > > I think a couple of recent posts have made people think that > talking > > > politics is completely out of order. > > > > > > What is not acceptable is using the forum to discuss issues or > matters > > > that relate to any specific professional body, no matter which > one > > > that is. > > > > > > It is disrespectful to the members of other professional bodies > to > > > have discussions relating to one body discussed as if those > people > > > don’t exist or have no feelings†" there is a place for > discussing those > > > matters and it is not on a public forum, public as in non- member > > > specific. I am fairly sure that each PA has its own membership > only > > > forum where internal matters can be discussed if they wish. If > they > > > don't it is none of my business. > > > > > > It is also disrespectful to the members of the particular body > to have > > > matters that relate to them and their membership discussed in a > public > > > forum. > > > > > > So, can I please ask everyone to show some respect to everyone > on the > > > list and abide by the list terms and conditions? > > > > > > An enormous amount of work has already been done, cooperatively > > > between PAs, . > > > All this information information is available from each PA. > > > > > > A scope of practice has been written and it is as broad as it > could > > > be. It does not narrow or close off any aspect of the herbal > > > profession. I don’t think there is one person who has been > working on > > > regulatory issues who would accept anything that curtailed our > > > practice. Everyone working on that is in fact a herbalist just > like > > > everyone else so why on earth would they accept something that > > > restricted themselves? > > > Regulation also allows for, and in fact requires the development > of > > > the profession, and actively promotes the profession in the > public arena. > > > > > > The parts of medicines legislation that indicate ⠀˜herbalist’ > but > > > without a definition of what a herbalist is, cannot be enforced > so > > > there is no restriction on the use of certain herbs. However, if > the > > > word ‘herbalist’ (with all its variant forms) becomes > enshrined in UK > > > law, it will mean that the restriction on prescribing will apply > to > > > anyone who does not meet the definition of the term‘ > herbalist’. So > > > doctors would not be able to use them unless they had been > trained to > > > do so. > > > > > > Perhaps one way to look at the American experience is to > consider the > > > huge responsibility we have in the UK. We have colleagues, some > of > > > them on this list, who practice illegally because they live > outside > > > the UK or Ireland. At least we don’t have to do that here. If > we gain > > > legal status here, then herbalists all over the world will be in > a > > > position to say herbal medicine is a legally recognised > profession in > > > the UK and we want that in our country too. > > > > > > That is not to say I look at the world through rose tinted > spectacles > > > or that I have high, unreachable ideals. I can be as sceptical > as > > > anyone. It has to be regulation that meets the profession⠀™s > requirements. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > > > > ======================================== > > > Message Received: Nov 02 2008, 02:00 PM > > > From: " Gascoigne " <gasco@ <mailto:gasco%40eircom.net>> > > > To: ukherbal-list <mailto:ukherbal-list% > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > Cc: > > > Subject: Re: SR > > > > > > Without wishing to stray into politics, we can see from recent > events > > > that governments can do anything if they so wish. Will the UK > government > > > regulate herbalists unilaterally? We don't know but I guess that > there > > > is a certain apprehension that they might and that drives some > of the > > > process. On the other side, people are worried about what > regulation > > > will mean in terms of our practice. My point about what we are > allowed > > > to do after regulation (if it happens) remains a valid one. > > > > > > At the moment, herbalists are restricted in their use of certain > herbs. > > > However, medical practitioners can use such herbs (with no > training or > > > knowledge of herbs) due to the practice of off-label > prescribing. This > > > gives medical practitioners the right to use any substance that > they > > > believe may be helpful in treating people. I would not like to > see a > > > scenario where herbalists are still prevented from using certain > herbs > > > or using them in particular ways whilst medical practitioners > continue > > > to have the right to off-label prescribe herbs. What is sauce > for the > > > goose........... However, I know that there are hierarchies at > work here > > > and herbalists are not generally near the top (or acupuncturists > or > > > homoeopaths). > > > > > > One of my concerns is that in the desire to be regulated, we do > not sign > > > away any rights or privileges that we currently have. In the US > in the > > > latter half of the 19th century, homoeopathy was very strong > with high > > > percentages of medical doctors using it as treatment. In a > desire to be > > > approved and part of the system, colleges then instituted > conventional > > > medical training alongside homoeopathic education. Within a > generation, > > > homoeopathic education and treatment had collapsed. It is only > now > > > recovering some hundred years later. > > > > > > It is important that we work together whatever our practice or > therapy. > > > I would like to see more cooperation and discussion between > > > practitioners in order to develop our common interests. This > discussion > > > group is a good example of exchanging ideas between > practitioners. > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > Gascoigne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Dear why is it that despite numerous people feeling that your tone is frequently accusatory you never seem to see why people feel this to be so and seemingly always turn it round so that everyone else is wrong and only you and a few other all seeing individuals are able to understand the real situation and the rest of us poor dolts have our heads in the sand or dont have " the wit " to see whats going on around us? regards , annette Dear , I did not write a personal attack, it was a political post / thread with a view point and tone that I disagreed and took some exception to (as one does)so I responded. Why is it that pro-regulatory 'speak' or propaganda is considered to be in a catagory beyond critersism, 'the ultimate paternalistic truth' and always defended to the hilt (with arguements that do not hold water and 'facts' that are not true, usually with the inclusion of how much work individual members have put into pushing, promoting, working towards SR - which is ultimately immaterial if the time and energy spent ends up being detrimental to herbalists and herbal medicine) and those that critercise it or question its validity or sanity are deemed to be negative, argumentative, competative, foolish, fiends etc etc? I stick by the 'facts' as I have presented - I hope other herbalists see the situation more clearly before it is too late. This is not a personal attack on anyone I only write in the hope that others wake up and see the situation for what it is - not what they hope it is. I cannot and will not be silent out of fear of offending someone. Regards, > > Dear > > I am a member of the Unified Register of Herbal Practitioners (URHP) and have just retired > as their Registrar (a voluntary post to which I was elected by members present at the AGM). > > I really do feel that the sort of sentiment expressed in your email to Stannard > is accusatory, non-constructive, inaccurate and injust. > > And actually rather unkind. > > Voluntary members from all the herbal associations spend an inordinate amount of their own > time attending EHTPA meetings etc as well as their own committee meetings and work extremely > hard to understand and favourably influence decision making about all herbalists' future in the UK. > > However much you may disagree with the work done on your behalf, committee members are elected > by their association members and in a democratic society, not everyone is going to be satisfied with > the results. The answer is to turn up to every AGM and council meetings and to vote; make your > opinion known and maybe to put yourself forward for election as a council member. > > The sentiments expressed in your email are not everybody's and you need to ensure that your facts > are correct and that your valid views do not descend into personal attack and criticism. > > Boys > URHP > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear all, Can we just step back from this a little please? It seems to me that SSR has actually very little to do with us, the well informed, conscientious herbalists. Governments have a legitimate role in protecting people from the ignorant, the unscrupulous and the uninsured. The ones who genuinely believe that their pink potions will cure your cancer, and the ones who know perfectly well that they won't, but charge £500 a time. No professional organisation would have them, but they can still call themselves herbalists, do great harm to vulnerable people, and tarnish our reputation. As things stand, if you want to install a gas fire in someone's home, you have to be able to show that you've done - and passed - the relevant training, and kept your knowledge up to date. But anyone can call themselves a herbalist, charge through the nose for useless treatment, sleep with the patients or whatever, and there's not a thing anyone can do about it unless they've actually broken the law. Oppose SSR if you think that's a satisfactory state of affairs. There isn't some conspiracy of evil bureaucrats out there trying to destroy our tradition. However, the civil servants charged with creating the regulatory framework to protect the public don't actually know what we do. So I am hugely grateful to those herbalists who have given enormous amounts of their time and energy to the consultation process, to ensure that eventual regulation allows us to carry on doing what we do - diagnosing, making our own remedies when we want to, practising our way. Regards, Natalia > Dear > why is it that despite numerous people feeling that your tone is > frequently accusatory you never seem to see why people feel this to > be so and seemingly always turn it round so that everyone else is > wrong and only you and a few other all seeing individuals are able > to understand the real situation and the rest of us poor dolts have > our heads in the sand or dont have " the wit " to see whats going on > around us? > regards , annette > > Dear , > I did not write a personal attack, it was a political post / thread > with a view point and tone that I disagreed and took some exception > to (as one does)so I responded. > > Why is it that pro-regulatory 'speak' or propaganda is considered to > be in a catagory beyond critersism, 'the ultimate paternalistic > truth' and always defended to the hilt (with arguements that do not > hold water and 'facts' that are not true, usually with the inclusion > of how much work individual members have put into pushing, promoting, > working towards SR - which is ultimately immaterial if the time and > energy spent ends up being detrimental to herbalists and herbal > medicine) and those that critercise it or question its validity or > sanity are deemed to be negative, argumentative, competative, > foolish, fiends etc etc? > > I stick by the 'facts' as I have presented - I hope other herbalists > see the situation more clearly before it is too late. This is not a > personal attack on anyone I only write in the hope that others wake > up and see the situation for what it is - not what they hope it is. I > cannot and will not be silent out of fear of offending someone. > > Regards, > > > > > > > Dear > > > > I am a member of the Unified Register of Herbal Practitioners > (URHP) and have just retired > > as their Registrar (a voluntary post to which I was elected by > members present at the AGM). > > > > I really do feel that the sort of sentiment expressed in your email > to Stannard > > is accusatory, non-constructive, inaccurate and injust. > > > > And actually rather unkind. > > > > Voluntary members from all the herbal associations spend an > inordinate amount of their own > > time attending EHTPA meetings etc as well as their own committee > meetings and work extremely > > hard to understand and favourably influence decision making about > all herbalists' future in the UK. > > > > However much you may disagree with the work done on your behalf, > committee members are elected > > by their association members and in a democratic society, not > everyone is going to be satisfied with > > the results. The answer is to turn up to every AGM and council > meetings and to vote; make your > > opinion known and maybe to put yourself forward for election as a > council member. > > > > The sentiments expressed in your email are not everybody's and you > need to ensure that your facts > > are correct and that your valid views do not descend into personal > attack and criticism. > > > > Boys > > URHP > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Well said, Natalia. > Dear > why is it that despite numerous people feeling that your tone is > frequently accusatory you never seem to see why people feel this to > be so and seemingly always turn it round so that everyone else is > wrong and only you and a few other all seeing individuals are able > to understand the real situation and the rest of us poor dolts have > our heads in the sand or dont have " the wit " to see whats going on > around us? > regards , annette > > Dear , > I did not write a personal attack, it was a political post / thread > with a view point and tone that I disagreed and took some exception > to (as one does)so I responded. > > Why is it that pro-regulatory 'speak' or propaganda is considered to > be in a catagory beyond critersism, 'the ultimate paternalistic > truth' and always defended to the hilt (with arguements that do not > hold water and 'facts' that are not true, usually with the inclusion > of how much work individual members have put into pushing, promoting, > working towards SR - which is ultimately immaterial if the time and > energy spent ends up being detrimental to herbalists and herbal > medicine) and those that critercise it or question its validity or > sanity are deemed to be negative, argumentative, competative, > foolish, fiends etc etc? > > I stick by the 'facts' as I have presented - I hope other herbalists > see the situation more clearly before it is too late. This is not a > personal attack on anyone I only write in the hope that others wake > up and see the situation for what it is - not what they hope it is. I > cannot and will not be silent out of fear of offending someone. > > Regards, > > > > > > > Dear > > > > I am a member of the Unified Register of Herbal Practitioners > (URHP) and have just retired > > as their Registrar (a voluntary post to which I was elected by > members present at the AGM). > > > > I really do feel that the sort of sentiment expressed in your email > to Stannard > > is accusatory, non-constructive, inaccurate and injust. > > > > And actually rather unkind. > > > > Voluntary members from all the herbal associations spend an > inordinate amount of their own > > time attending EHTPA meetings etc as well as their own committee > meetings and work extremely > > hard to understand and favourably influence decision making about > all herbalists' future in the UK. > > > > However much you may disagree with the work done on your behalf, > committee members are elected > > by their association members and in a democratic society, not > everyone is going to be satisfied with > > the results. The answer is to turn up to every AGM and council > meetings and to vote; make your > > opinion known and maybe to put yourself forward for election as a > council member. > > > > The sentiments expressed in your email are not everybody's and you > need to ensure that your facts > > are correct and that your valid views do not descend into personal > attack and criticism. > > > > Boys > > URHP > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Well said, Boys Re: Re: SR Dear all, Can we just step back from this a little please? It seems to me that SSR has actually very little to do with us, the well informed, conscientious herbalists. Governments have a legitimate role in protecting people from the ignorant, the unscrupulous and the uninsured. The ones who genuinely believe that their pink potions will cure your cancer, and the ones who know perfectly well that they won't, but charge £500 a time. No professional organisation would have them, but they can still call themselves herbalists, do great harm to vulnerable people, and tarnish our reputation. As things stand, if you want to install a gas fire in someone's home, you have to be able to show that you've done - and passed - the relevant training, and kept your knowledge up to date. But anyone can call themselves a herbalist, charge through the nose for useless treatment, sleep with the patients or whatever, and there's not a thing anyone can do about it unless they've actually broken the law. Oppose SSR if you think that's a satisfactory state of affairs. There isn't some conspiracy of evil bureaucrats out there trying to destroy our tradition. However, the civil servants charged with creating the regulatory framework to protect the public don't actually know what we do. So I am hugely grateful to those herbalists who have given enormous amounts of their time and energy to the consultation process, to ensure that eventual regulation allows us to carry on doing what we do - diagnosing, making our own remedies when we want to, practising our way. Regards, Natalia > Dear > why is it that despite numerous people feeling that your tone is > frequently accusatory you never seem to see why people feel this to > be so and seemingly always turn it round so that everyone else is > wrong and only you and a few other all seeing individuals are able > to understand the real situation and the rest of us poor dolts have > our heads in the sand or dont have " the wit " to see whats going on > around us? > regards , annette > > Dear , > I did not write a personal attack, it was a political post / thread > with a view point and tone that I disagreed and took some exception > to (as one does)so I responded. > > Why is it that pro-regulatory 'speak' or propaganda is considered to > be in a catagory beyond critersism, 'the ultimate paternalistic > truth' and always defended to the hilt (with arguements that do not > hold water and 'facts' that are not true, usually with the inclusion > of how much work individual members have put into pushing, promoting, > working towards SR - which is ultimately immaterial if the time and > energy spent ends up being detrimental to herbalists and herbal > medicine) and those that critercise it or question its validity or > sanity are deemed to be negative, argumentative, competative, > foolish, fiends etc etc? > > I stick by the 'facts' as I have presented - I hope other herbalists > see the situation more clearly before it is too late. This is not a > personal attack on anyone I only write in the hope that others wake > up and see the situation for what it is - not what they hope it is. I > cannot and will not be silent out of fear of offending someone. > > Regards, > > > > > > > Dear > > > > I am a member of the Unified Register of Herbal Practitioners > (URHP) and have just retired > > as their Registrar (a voluntary post to which I was elected by > members present at the AGM). > > > > I really do feel that the sort of sentiment expressed in your email > to Stannard > > is accusatory, non-constructive, inaccurate and injust. > > > > And actually rather unkind. > > > > Voluntary members from all the herbal associations spend an > inordinate amount of their own > > time attending EHTPA meetings etc as well as their own committee > meetings and work extremely > > hard to understand and favourably influence decision making about > all herbalists' future in the UK. > > > > However much you may disagree with the work done on your behalf, > committee members are elected > > by their association members and in a democratic society, not > everyone is going to be satisfied with > > the results. The answer is to turn up to every AGM and council > meetings and to vote; make your > > opinion known and maybe to put yourself forward for election as a > council member. > > > > The sentiments expressed in your email are not everybody's and you > need to ensure that your facts > > are correct and that your valid views do not descend into personal > attack and criticism. > > > > Boys > > URHP > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 It was good to read your post Natalia and be reminded of the pros of regulation. I have held back from entering into discussion because posts frequently read as belittling and insulting to the intelligence of experienced and practicing herbalists. I wonder if this is the same for others. I am running a businesses and successfully treating patients, something I wouldn't be capable of if I was ignorant or stupid. The very fact that I am a herbalist also means I am fully aware of the risks of playing ball with the controlling elements of modern living. I am confronted on a daily basis of the restrictions being slapped on me in every aspect of my life, not just in my practice. However, I am also sick to the back teeth of hearing the utter rubbish that is banded about everywhere about herbal medicine and herbalists and the damaging nonsense that people who come to see me have been told by " pink potion practitioners " and money making marketeers. If regulation means that the best possible practice of herbal medicine is all that is available then I welcome it and I am eternally grateful to those more experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated than myself who are fighting our corner. (and if we are banned then you'll find me in a barn somewhere dealing in illicit prescriptions or actually I quite like the idea of a horse drawn wagon with a snake oil logo on the side!) Zoe Medical Herbalist MNIMH RGN Dip Phyt. www.herbaljournal.co.uk www.zoehawes.co.uk Bath 01761 439 920 > Dear all, > > Can we just step back from this a little please? It seems to me that > SSR has actually very little to do with us, the well informed, > conscientious herbalists. > > Governments have a legitimate role in protecting people from the > ignorant, the unscrupulous and the uninsured. The ones who genuinely > believe that their pink potions will cure your cancer, and the ones > who know perfectly well that they won't, but charge £500 a time. No > professional organisation would have them, but they can still call > themselves herbalists, do great harm to vulnerable people, and tarnish > our reputation. > > As things stand, if you want to install a gas fire in someone's home, > you have to be able to show that you've done - and passed - the > relevant training, and kept your knowledge up to date. But anyone can > call themselves a herbalist, charge through the nose for useless > treatment, sleep with the patients or whatever, and there's not a > thing anyone can do about it unless they've actually broken the law. > Oppose SSR if you think that's a satisfactory state of affairs. > > There isn't some conspiracy of evil bureaucrats out there trying to > destroy our tradition. However, the civil servants charged with > creating the regulatory framework to protect the public don't actually > know what we do. So I am hugely grateful to those herbalists who have > given enormous amounts of their time and energy to the consultation > process, to ensure that eventual regulation allows us to carry on > doing what we do - diagnosing, making our own remedies when we want > to, practicing our way. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Dear Zoe, This is the killer phrase: " If regulation means that the best possible practice of herbal medicine is all that is available..... " That " If " is what all the debate is about. There is a range views from those who feel it will definitely happen to those who feel herbs will be further controlled by regulation and all shades in between. For me, it is unclear at the moment what the final form will be. Time will tell. However, there is no harm in being optimistic whilst, at the same time, exercising caution when dealing with powerful vested interests. Regards Gascoigne Email: mailto:drgascoigne@... Web: http://www.drgascoigne.com Zoe Hawes wrote: > > It was good to read your post Natalia and be reminded of the pros of > regulation. > I have held back from entering into discussion because posts > frequently read as belittling and insulting to the intelligence of > experienced and practicing herbalists. I wonder if this is the same > for others. > > I am running a businesses and successfully treating patients, > something I wouldn't be capable of if I was ignorant or stupid. > The very fact that I am a herbalist also means I am fully aware of > the risks of playing ball with the controlling elements of modern > living. > I am confronted on a daily basis of the restrictions being slapped on > me in every aspect of my life, not just in my practice. > However, I am also sick to the back teeth of hearing the utter > rubbish that is banded about everywhere about herbal medicine and > herbalists and the damaging nonsense that people who come to see me > have been told by " pink potion practitioners " and money making > marketeers. > > If regulation means that the best possible practice of herbal > medicine is all that is available then I welcome it and I am > eternally grateful to those more experienced, knowledgeable and > dedicated than myself who are fighting our corner. > (and if we are banned then you'll find me in a barn somewhere dealing > in illicit prescriptions or actually I quite like the idea of a horse > drawn wagon with a snake oil logo on the side!) > > Zoe > > Medical Herbalist > MNIMH RGN Dip Phyt. > > www.herbaljournal.co.uk > www.zoehawes.co.uk > Bath > 01761 439 920 > > > > > Dear all, > > > > Can we just step back from this a little please? It seems to me that > > SSR has actually very little to do with us, the well informed, > > conscientious herbalists. > > > > Governments have a legitimate role in protecting people from the > > ignorant, the unscrupulous and the uninsured. The ones who genuinely > > believe that their pink potions will cure your cancer, and the ones > > who know perfectly well that they won't, but charge £500 a time. No > > professional organisation would have them, but they can still call > > themselves herbalists, do great harm to vulnerable people, and tarnish > > our reputation. > > > > As things stand, if you want to install a gas fire in someone's home, > > you have to be able to show that you've done - and passed - the > > relevant training, and kept your knowledge up to date. But anyone can > > call themselves a herbalist, charge through the nose for useless > > treatment, sleep with the patients or whatever, and there's not a > > thing anyone can do about it unless they've actually broken the law. > > Oppose SSR if you think that's a satisfactory state of affairs. > > > > There isn't some conspiracy of evil bureaucrats out there trying to > > destroy our tradition. However, the civil servants charged with > > creating the regulatory framework to protect the public don't actually > > know what we do. So I am hugely grateful to those herbalists who have > > given enormous amounts of their time and energy to the consultation > > process, to ensure that eventual regulation allows us to carry on > > doing what we do - diagnosing, making our own remedies when we want > > to, practicing our way. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Dear , if I do not understand someone's response (generally because I think they have misunderstood mine) I do not follow. " Bored " I believe you are talking about the MF not here and it came from Steve Kippax not me. Though I am getting bored now. So I am " to refrain from making personal comments about other people's approach to the whole SR question " but personal comments against those who are opposed to SR is alright. OK as long as I know how things work! Perhaps I need to look at my style of communication. Would anyone else here like to look at how defensive they are of SR? Why does any opposition, critercism or pointing out of the flaws or dangers incites such angers? Also why someone voicing anti regulation views and comcerns are regarded as arguementative, " competitive " , destructive, creating negativity etc, etc???!!! Further why is expressing pro SR views acceptable, countering it is unacceptable? It has never been an activity of mine to mess with anyone head / mental health - thank-you. " It hurts the people at whom it is directed- intentionally or not and ultimately it hurts the person working in this way because eventually people faced persistantly with this sort of response to their perfectly legitimate views decide to have nothing further to do with the perpetrator " - is this what you and others are trying to do here? Do you think your message is a pleasant one for me to receive? You are exagerating, and distorting what I have said and my intention for the purpose it seems to put me down and I feel shut me up. Lastly, to all - I really hope you are right in respect to SR and that everything will be alright and our right to practice and access herbs will not be stopped or impinged upon. I do not believe this will be the case; I am seriously concerned; I speak to raise concerns not to upset; I would rather not feel I have to and that everything will be ok. We shall see in a couple of years or so what exactly will be what. Then we can all remember our view points and what we each stood and worked towards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Dear I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel but I do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of turning around every comment made to you about the way you " communicate " into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think that of you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not like your tone of voice .everyone else is wrong except you is always your attitude. annette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Annette, why are you repeating yourself? I heard what you said what would you like me to say or do? I am not about to accept whatever I am accused of regardless - nor be silenced. Nor am I adverse to looking at myself. However, nor do I believe I would take anything back. If there is something you object to or do not think true then say so and be specific. I (and others) do not like the 'tone' that others have spoken with - does that surprise you? I think we should drop it; unless there are others out there who would like to lynch me for disrespecting the holy cow (SR) and challenging their view point. And maybe, just maybe I simply look at the world and situations differently to some other people. Maybe, just maybe I do see something that few other people do. Why is that such a threat? " Its not a threat, we just do not like your attitude... " I can hear it coming... Dear I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel but I do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of turning around every comment made to you about the way you " communicate " into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think that of you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not like your tone of voice. everyone else is wrong except you is always your attitude. annette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Im repeating myself the same way you do .You say you heard what I said - well maybe people have heard what you have said and need a break from it if only to give them the silence of reflection. Re: SR Annette, why are you repeating yourself? I heard what you said what would you like me to say or do? I am not about to accept whatever I am accused of regardless - nor be silenced. Nor am I adverse to looking at myself. However, nor do I believe I would take anything back. If there is something you object to or do not think true then say so and be specific. I (and others) do not like the 'tone' that others have spoken with - does that surprise you? I think we should drop it; unless there are others out there who would like to lynch me for disrespecting the holy cow (SR) and challenging their view point. And maybe, just maybe I simply look at the world and situations differently to some other people. Maybe, just maybe I do see something that few other people do. Why is that such a threat? " Its not a threat, we just do not like your attitude... " I can hear it coming... Dear I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel but I do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of turning around every comment made to you about the way you " communicate " into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think that of you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not like your tone of voice. everyone else is wrong except you is always your attitude. annette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Dear All This SR business always provokes such passion. There are those who are for it and those who are against it and it seems never the twain shall meet!! It is a shame really because neither side can seem to see the others viewpoint in a detached manner because we all seem to take it so personally. Whatever we feel about it, it is very sad to me that we as a profession seem so divided. One good thing I will say from all this debate is at least we have and express our views and are free to do so. There are still so many herbalists out there who have been silent on the matter or suffer from a bit of political apathy and who can blame them. I am also reminded of the reflective process and wonder what it is in some of these debates that pushes our buttons so much!! I am off to meditate!! best wishes to you all Jacqui > > Dear > I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel but I > do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of turning > around every comment made to you about the way you " communicate " > into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think that of > you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not like your > tone of voice. everyone else is wrong except you is always your > attitude. > annette > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 Divide and rule comes to mind. I'm not into conspiracies at all but it just comes to mind on reflection of all this SR stuff. The oldest trick in the book. Food for thought maybe. I want to see herbal medicine available on the NHS. People have to demand it. How can we achieve that? > > > > Dear > > I have no pro Sr stance - I simply dont know which way I feel > but I > > do know as I said earlier to you that you have the knack of > turning > > around every comment made to you about the way you " > communicate " > > into one of amazed befuddlement as to how any one can think that > of > > you and point the finger back at everyone else who does not like > your > > tone of voice. everyone else is wrong except you is always your > > attitude. > > annette > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.