In recent decades, governments in several countries of the global south have started regulating practitioners of traditional medicine. This has resulted from inadequate primary healthcare and inadequate funding. This article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of regulation of T&CM practitioners. Also included are some examples of the potential problems of regulation. Read on to discover more. * How do you protect your T&CM occupational titles? And, what are the pitfalls of regulation?
Regulation of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners
The regulatory framework for complementary and alternative medicine should give patients adequate protection and choice in the health care they receive. The new rules from the Board of Medicine provide reasonable latitude for complementary therapies and protections for those who practice them. In some cases, regulated practitioners may provide more beneficial services to patients than doctors do, such as relaxation therapy. Despite the new rules, some practitioners are operating outside the law and are even being prosecuted.
In conventional medicine, practitioners are regulated by laws. This ensures that practitioners are qualified and follow certain standards. In complementary medicine, however, there is no such statutory regulation. Patients must check the credentials of practitioners to ensure they are getting the best possible care. Several practitioners can join voluntary or professional associations and adhere to certain standards. These practices are not covered by insurance plans. However, it is important to note that many practitioners are registered through these organisations, which ensures high quality care.
Regulating complementary and alternative medicine practitioners is crucial for the public’s health and safety. This type of medical practice involves a wide range of practices and products that supplement or replace conventional medicine. Some of these are centuries old, while others are relatively recent. Nonetheless, a number of CAM products and practices are covered under statutory definitions in some countries. These include electrotherapy, yoga, chiropractic medicine, and massage therapy.
While CAM practitioners are not licensed primary care providers, their practice is increasingly viewed as a legitimate alternative. Despite this, the focus on limited procedures has created significant barriers to incorporating CAM professionals into an integrative patient care team. Fortunately, these barriers are being eliminated as research and policy changes support the continued integration of CAM into conventional health care. Ultimately, these policies can benefit patients and the CAM professions.
The statutory regulation of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners in conventional medicine should focus on these factors. The first goal should be to protect patients from the harmful effects of unlicensed T&CM practices. While regulation of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners is an essential element of health care, this model is based on misappropriation of native health care practices. Many indigenous communities practice their traditional medicines without official governmental sanction. This results in an uneven power hierarchy between indigenous and biomedical healthcare providers.
Moreover, statutory regulation of traditional medicine practitioners poses unique policy challenges. Many of these issues stem from the legacy of European colonization throughout the world. Because biomedicine has disproportionate political power in health systems and dominates health professional regulatory frameworks, regulation of traditional medicine practitioners in conventional medicine poses a complex and challenging task. The WHO is advocating increased access, quality, and safety of traditional medicine care. These policy challenges are significant, but there are few resources to support the process.
Legal protection of T&CM occupational titles
Some T&CM practitioners believe that regulatory oversight is necessary to protect T&CM occupational titles. Others are unsure of the role of regulation, arguing that it may not resolve overlapping practice scopes and boundaries. Regardless of how practitioners feel about regulation, many consumers perceive these practices as legitimate regardless of whether they are regulated or not. The debate over whether regulatory oversight is necessary must be separated from debates over public safety.
This review of international literature on T&CM identified 60 studies using quantitative and qualitative design methods. These studies included participation of policy-makers, professional associations, education providers, and consumers. The researchers identified six stakeholder groups: practitioners, consumers, education providers, and professional associations. There were no studies in the United States, but Canada, UK, and Korea were representative of each country. The researchers also surveyed 36 discrete professions: naturopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy, and acupuncture.
Support for regulatory oversight of T&CM is contextual, based on factors such as perceived professionalisation, integration, and perceived marginalisation. However, this support is not universal. In fact, it varies greatly between different sectors. For example, conventional medicine professionals have generally been less supportive of legislative governance of TCM and acupuncture. Ultimately, regulation of T&CM and acupuncture practitioners may help them achieve their goal of providing better health for the people of their country.
Regulation of T&CM practitioners is becoming a hot topic, with widespread consumer use of T&CM. In a recent review, researchers looked at the attitudes of stakeholders towards T&CM and how they might affect the regulation of the profession. Although the results revealed a range of views, the majority of stakeholders supported regulation, despite its limitations. Those opposed to regulation expressed concerns related to the regulatory framework, including potential restrictions on practice, medical oversight, and societal norms.
Potential pitfalls of regulation
The availability of prescription medicines over the Internet has posed new challenges for regulation, and will require new responses. Although many of these actions are rooted in law enforcement, health, and social responses, understanding the sources and the movement of medicines is essential for success. Advances in technology, such as electronic record keeping and centralised prescription databases, have reduced the opportunity for doctor shopping and other diversion of medicines. These developments will likely continue to present new challenges, and regulations must be adapted to reflect these changes.
The World Health Organization defines regulation as “a process to balance the requirements of legitimate medical use with the needs of society”. In other words, the goal should be to limit non-medical use of medicines while maximising their medical value. But this balance can be compromised when the appropriate regulation is based on national causes and circumstances. As a result, inappropriate restrictions can lead to increased diversion and illicit use of medicines and limit access to these essential medications for patients.
Leave a Reply