Regulation and Protection of the Public

This is the first of a regular (unofficial) blog about regulation of the Alexander Profession, directed at fellow members of the Interactive Teaching Method Association. I try to check out that everything I assert as true, is true. But I might be wrong now and then. For diplomatic reasons I cannot be entirely straight and honest with you - but I'll try to make them readable. One (or two) points per posting, plus (at least) one joke.

I was at a party of school-friends the week-end (no, this isn't the joke paragraph) after the ATEAM backpain trial was published. There were several medics at the party who had heard of the trial, and were keen to know more about it. They were impressed - and they immediately asked 'How are Alexander Technique teachers regulated - how can we find a list of teachers that we can trust?' [The current answer is that there are four registers: ATI, ITM, PAAT, and STAT - but that's not my point]

My point is that their question demonstrates how much regulatory issues are in the forefront of the thinking of those professionals - such as General Practitioners - that we Alexander teachers might well be working with closely soon. Because there is a huge impetus now, in the medical sector, to get regulation 'right'. The Shipman case has resulted in reports which have great implications for the protection of the public, and will result in a grand tidy-up of the mish-mash of different systems and standards of regulation that different medical professions have.

And regulation will have one over-riding purpose: protection of the public. Being on a 'pukka' register will be a guarantee that the practitioner will: have a qualification that his/her profession recognises; have insurance; be signed up to a code of conduct; be obliged to do Continuing Professional Development; and will be subject to independent disciplinary procedures if a complaint arises.

POINT TO REMEMBER - Regulation is about Protection of the Public.

Regulation is not in itself a guarantee of efficacy of the discipline being regulated. In theory, if I invented a healthcare practice called Kilkee Inspiration of Sea-air Therapy (KIST) and in ten years many people paid to have it, and it seemed to have a good effect - then it would be eligible for regulation, provided the profession could do its part in demonstrating that its qualifications are responsibly structured and earned, its members are insured etc.

POINT TO REMEMBER - Regulation is not about efficacy of Practice - being regulated does not come with a badge of effectiveness. [But your profession would not be regulated if there were not at least some evidence that it is effective].

APPALLINGLY INAPPROPRIATE JOKE
Someone chairing a regulatory meeting attended by 20 Complementary Healthcare Professions, after lunch was over, and the second half of the meeting was beginning said: 'Did you hear the one about the homeopath who drank a glass of water and died of an overdose?'