Like it or not there is little doubt that the GOsC will go ahead with this project. Read between the lines of the draft document and you will see that there is a real potential for limiting the scope of osteopathy. I do not mean the restrictions on treating during pregnancy as it has already been stated by GOsC that this part of the document will be changed. The danger lies in the way in which osteopathic practice is described.
- Dividing practice up on the basis of what is commonly and less commonly encountered is arbitrary
- Including electrotherapy as an osteopathic technique (B 40 iv) is wrong
- There is no evidence that pregnant women or children are treated less frequently than any other group of patients
- To suggest that any patient has to be treated under the supervision of a doctor or midwife devalues osteopathy and limits patient choice
It should be stated categorically that osteopathic treatment is manual. Osteopaths who incorporate adjunctive techniques in their practices are not using osteopathy. Osteopathic techniques do not conveniently fall into practice types but they can be thought of as being either direct or indirect; practitioners move from one to the other seamlessly during treatment.
The argument of commonly and less commonly encountered types of practice is flawed. Who knows what individual osteopaths actually do? Moreover, the picture of commonly encountered practice is based on undergraduate training. Experience brings flexibility and individuality into the approach, so that the more expert the practitioner the more he is likely to deviate from the standard model. It is facile to suggest that what is supposedly a less frequently encountered mode of treatment requires more explanation than what is perceived to be common. The issue is one of patient consent: this is obtained (though impossible to prove) or not, regardless of the osteopath’s particular bent.
Osteopaths do not treat pregnant women because they are pregnant, neonates because they are very new, or elite athletes because of their sport. Osteopaths treat people regardless of their age, occupation or type of illness. That some osteopaths have a special interest in particular groups is self-evident. Many choose to undertake post-graduate training
It is a fact that many osteopaths employ ancillary treatment in their practices and it proper that the public be informed accordingly, but to imply that electro-therapy is osteopathic practice (clause 40 iv) is absurd and misleading.
If we are to preserve our freedom to work according to our interpretation of what is the best interests of our patients then we must prevent the publication and implementation of unnecessary prescriptive and proscriptive measures by GOsC. So long as GOsC policy is beneficial to patients, both in the immediate and long-term future, then we should work cooperatively
Recent comments