Small business is seriously threatened by over-regulation, and big business knows this. The EU is doing this on behalf of big industry across the board. I just think that being lead by a regulator which seems to be nothing more than a parasite of Osteopathy, more in tune with the strangling corporate dictates, is not doing us any favours. This is not about safety. If it was, standards on drug testing would have to be rewritten. (How about an untested H1N1 vaccine, containing squalene – a harmful stabilizer, produced by a company that Donald Rumsfeld has millions of dollars of shares in, and finally and unprecedentaly, is exempt from future prosecution in the event of side effects?! Oh and may as well get rid of that soon to be out of date tamiflu too – never mind that it won’t help)

I hear whispers of fascism from revered osteopaths. It seems that we are too frightened to even debate these fundamental restrictions and increased bureaucracy, at a sensible volume. I for one would love to keep true Osteopathy above ground. I like many of you believe that it should be at the forefront of 21st Century medicine. We owe it to ourselves and the public to make our voices heard.

I tried to reply earlier on, to another posting, but apparently did not work and only get my e-mail address appearing everywhere (?), nevertheless I did not subscribe for postings!!! No time to wait for a reply….(if I make myself understood, sorry).

Let’s hope it goes in this time… and as well because English is not my first language, I manage to make myself understood and properly argue…correctly, kindly and pleasently, pointing to the “bleeding” and the “cause of the disease”. I shall address three points in this posting at the same time if you allow me, please. My interest is to inform and kindly ask Colleagues to reflect under the best of the terms and consciousness.

Excluding better informed opinion….

In short, I said that Osteopathy has to be Osteopathy and follow the Founder’s views, unless scientifically is it proven to be wrong. The problem that occurs, is that we do not have the house in order, both at national levels and internationally too, everyone says Osteopathy is this and that, and often something less, quite often – an authentic Babel’s tower! Sadly, this is the truth. I wished someone could prove I was wrong… I would be very happy, indeed!

About what you said Paul I entirely agree with you (didn’t we qualify in 1983, smile!)… indeed, I also raised such in “Osteopathy for all” website a while ago.

I always have been a supporter of the OAGB now BOA, GCRO and now GOsC, BUT, times apparently are changing, because I do not agree with “Napoleonic nullities”, OFTEN, a total waste of time that will bring no major positive outcomes, except all is a danger and a crime, unless regulated, etc… great for bureaucrats!

We cannot be seen using a lot of time for nothing, I am “fed up” with too much paper work for the sake of nothing.

I hope one day GOsC and BOA do not get my / our registration and membership declination / resigning.

On the other hand, what is really being done on the Patients’ and Profession behalf? What will revalidation bring about?

Something for the sake of what? A response to an individual criminal!? An allopathic physician who performed crimes, not malpractice per se, in terms of “figure”.

I always have done CPDs every year, indeed hundreds of hours… complied with everything, as all of you have done, SO…..why all of this then?

Great, at least we will get lots of data for what happens in everyday practice life!

But, what has that to do with revalidation? Isn´t revalidation supposed to check what we have done before (?) ie. we had to validate ourselves under the regulator, now has a “re” that means all of it again?

Or, is this going to be another as I said before, again, a Napoleonic show off!!!!”?????????

On the other hand, – to mix up the problem even more, – I do not agree with limited scope of practice, that is not the way how Osteopathy appeared – it appeared seeking unlimited practice rights.

If after reaching that, ie. full practice rights, one fails to practice Osteopathy properly, then it is the time to look back and think what is wrong and under proper means put it right under the full essence of Osteopathy – with its main focus a structural approach to Health.

I said on the other posting as already mentioned elsewhere, the actual model of teaching and practising in the UK has to be maintained and practitioners after being in practice for at least five years, only then can move onwards to get more practice rights.

A possible right implementation will have to pass through a gentlemen agreement / GOsC to implement an enforcement – will have / has to exist in all of this, otherwise we will see schools competing in an awkward way and start to implement for instance prescribing rights at undergraduate level, and this will be a total loss for Mankind as, to become an Osteopath as we know it, it will be impossible to become like that, if many therapies but osteopathic manipulation, etc.. are started to be used (now, please pay attention) to symptomatically improve the condition, and not addressing the whole person, the cause or the factors first.

Prescribing most of the drugs Osteopathically has to be different from prescribing them allopathically.

Not applying to the previous paragraph, for example: – antibiotics prescription, for instance, should be researched in individual terms as well under osteopathic philosophy terms, to see what will be the most correct way, as at present some arguments for their “correct” intake, do exist…..as we all well know…..

I do not want to say anything else except advising Colleagues to look at some sociology authors like Abbott, Freidson, Rodrigues, Turner, Weber, Perrow, Carapinheiro, Scambler, etc.. and then you will understand what I mean..in terms of professionalization and professional powers, etc..

(…) By the way, to inform Colleagues, last Tuesday, 16th June 2009, I was lucky to be invited to be in the Portuguese Parliament, I was there the full day, amongst the full Orthodoxy (great people), I in turn managed to invite two Osteopathic Colleagues ie. the Secretary of Associação de Profisisonais de Osteopatia Dr.Vasco Silva, who was there with me in the morning and Dr.José Paulo Pereira the President of Federação Portuguesa de Osteopatas, who was there in the afternoon, all was recorded in the official Portuguese TV Channel “Parlamento”.

I simply argued that Osteopathy can help the NHS in terms of its sustainability through for instance amongst other arguments, (first we have to regulate Osteopathy and comply with the Law) – (postponing such is creating major problems…), so, I argued at that, that our rapid community intervention, diminishing drugs prescription, waiting lists, etc…etc.. Politicians were impressed and I am supposed to write that again officially to them, they asked. As soon as I get the time…

I hope,within the next 2 weeks, they asked me to send under various forms, which it means they were impreseed and most interested…both in the Health commission and Budget and Finances commission of the Parliament. I am sure Osteopathy will be the first non conventional medicine profession in Portugal to become regulated.

A bit from here, a bit from there, all helps…

(…) On the other hand, let’s hope GOsC will make the miracle of having revalidation useful both to Patients and Profession.

As such, at the moment GOsC needs full support from the profession, if by the end the whole exercise will render to be imprecise, then a serious appraisal from the whole profession collectively must be ensued.

Let’s hope no day ever comes where and when Nations / States will not manage to sort citizens’ problems out!

Best wishes, supporting GOsC,

Augusto Henriques (Portugal)

You have hit the nail on the head for me in your last paragraph. You are most right , that as lone Osteopaths, we have not the individual resources at our disposal as have GPs ….and even then, they are ‘battling against paperwork’ as you say!

It is often forgotten, in discussions of ‘Revalidation’, that whereas the power of authority of the NHS is conferred by orthodoxy and institutional charisma, that of Osteopathy is conferred by the collective ‘Goodwill’ of our practices. This has been garnered through no other than the necessity of graft, self-determination and public acceptance of beneficient utility and not that of exalted executive command, as is the common expectation of publically funded officials….and it would seem, those that sit on regulatory councils.
Perhaps it is time, if we are to remain in a regulatory frame work, to consider for the application of the public funding of the GOsC and for all CPD and revalidatory exercises that self-subsisting Osteopaths undertake and currently pay for. At least then we shall be decently compensated for our time and mental efforts, as opposed to being uncompensated slaves in a rolling sea of bureaucratic paperwork that we currently pay for.

Regards

Paul