Comments on: Voluntary Self-Regulation: Important News For Hypnotherapists

By: Rosemary Pharo

Rosemary Pharo — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:28:04 +0000

For information on research in Reiki, please see http://www.reikicouncil.org.uk/Research/tabid/76/Default.aspx

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:45:15 +0000

Richard

Some people may get a benefit from reflexology or reiki, but it’s just the placebo effect and it certainly can’t cure anything (other than the help a bit of relaxation can give). The problem I have is that they frequently make claims about what they do that are just, well, nonsense! I certainly don’t want to lumped in with them and I think that’s the way the public (ie future customers) will see it!

By: Richard Hennessy

Richard Hennessy — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:04:27 +0000

Aaaaah! That really helps me understand why this may not be such a good move Joe. There is no doubt that some people get benefits from Reiki & reflexology etc but I prefer to think of myself as a clinical hypnotherapist and being associated with other less scientific ‘disciplines’ may not be so great. But as Adam said, anything that raises the game of our industry should (overall) be a good thing. I will watch with interest and maybe won’t now be at the front of the que for my CNHC membership…

By: Adam Eason

Adam Eason — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:47:43 +0000

In reply to Joe.

Hello Richard and Joe…

I have not said I am unsure about this move… Just that I look forward to seeing how things progress.

Whilst I empathise with comments pertaining to Reflexology and Reiki, they are not wholly relevant to us in this field and I think we’ll be better for having this kind of regulation than being without it.

Maybe it’ll be a little less like the Wild West out there as a result and maybe this is a step in the right direction. I am inclined to encourage and support this step in the hope of more steps forward to come.

I sometimes get concerned about the bureaucracy involved in these kinds of moves, but it all seems to make sense to me at this stage. Here, we pride ourselves on providing training that matches national occupational standards, so why should we not start to develop a structure for the profession in its entireity that matches similar standards?

Thank you both for your contributions.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:29:54 +0000

Richard

I totally agree about getting rid of the charlatans, but the CNHC also regulate reflexologists and are soon to regulate reiki, bowen therapy and craniosacral therapy. Do you really think being lumped in with those quacks (sorry if I offend anyone with that term) will be good for the profession?

Besides, I’m not sure how about this ‘better quality of service’ . All the CNHC will do is ensure that its members will have good training before they can register. That in itself doesn’t improve anything (other than weed out those not properly qualified).

Maybe I’m just having a bad day.

By: Richard Hennessy

Richard Hennessy — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:28:14 +0000

I’m not sure why you are unsure about this proposal. Surely anything that allows the public to get a better quality of service and to have a government backed initiative designed to help them to be more confident in our profession is a good thing. It may also lead to some of the charlatans out there calling it a day and looking for different ways to exploit people which would also be a good thing.
If I have missed some details that should cause me to be as worried/unsure about this as you are I would love to know the details.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:11:40 +0000

I’m not sure about this either. I’ll be waiting to see what happens!

I don’t remember seeing the DoH saying that ‘the only register of complementary or alternative therapists that they will recognize is the CNHC’. I can’t see it on the UKCHO website – do you know where it came from?

Thanks!