DOC CORRESPONDENCE WITH GOsC
19th January 2006
Dear Sir/Madam,
Our ref: qgosc191205
Re: concerns over the General Osteopathic Council's (GOsC) failure to support the intentions of the Osteopaths Act (1993).
The Democratic Osteopathic Council (DOC) understands that the Osteopaths Act (1993) gave the Regulatory Body, the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC), control of the title 'osteopath' but not of function. It is our belief that the legislation was introduced in accordance with the requirements of government to establish a Register and proper control of the osteopathic profession. It is our further belief that such was introduced to allow for the protection of occupation by those formerly and adequately qualified so as to allow them to undertake the role that existed prior to the legislation.
Therefore, members of the DOC believe this legislation should have resulted in those with osteopathic qualifications and training (but not registered with the GOsC) continuing professionally to use their qualifications, but under a title other than 'osteopath'. This is essential because professionals have a duty of care to inform their patients of their qualifications and training, to discuss their experience and skills with their patients for educational and health reasons, and to use their expertise to further patient safety and professional development with regard to independent research and training.
Since the year 2000, our attention has been drawn, by a number of non-registered practitioners, to the GOsC s treatment of them with regard to their educational and promotional material and the use of their qualifications therein.
Three major questions have arisen from this:
1) Why if the GOsC were concerned with individuals misleading the public did they not suggest a form of words in advertising which would conform to the Osteopaths Act 1993 whilst at the same time allowing the use of osteopathic treatment by non-registered practitioners?
2) With respect to those practitioners who were formerly and adequately qualified and should have been protected within the legislative parameters in accordance with the guidelines within the Osteopaths Act 1993, why has no informal discussion or information to such practitioners been forthcoming?
3) The question then must be, is it really necessary for the GOsC, at this point, to seek greater powers in law as a solution to its perceived problems when numerous avenues remain unexplored? The above places the members of the Democratic Osteopathic Council in disagreement either with yourselves or with the Government and yet our role is not to disagree, but to seek a way forward for our members so that they can continue in their chosen profession, as was intended when the legislation was first introduced.
Had you adopted the procedures as we interpret and understand them and met to discuss these criteria with us, then we feel there would have been a full and satisfactory resolution to all and any potential disputed areas. We seek no more then to promote those who were professionally qualified and recognised in law, to proceed and continue in their professional careers, not to the detriment of your body. Our members are willing to undertake CPD to enable them to continue to be up to date in their chosen profession.
Collectively the DOC understands the situation to be that you advised the Advertising Standards Agency it was acceptable for us to incorporate the terminology of "osteopathic treatments" and "members of the Democratic Osteopathic Council". Whereas now by accident or intention, the failure to consult over the wording used by unregistered practitioners, coupled with the GOsC`s readiness to use the threat of criminal prosecution, gives the impression that the GOsC does not wish anyone other than its registrants to use the term "osteopathic treatments".
The DOC believes that it was not the intention of Parliament to hand control of function as well as title to the GOsC, because of the complications in law and the injustices that would ensue. The DOC would appreciate your response as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully,
Barbara Meakin
Company Secretary
RESPONSE FROM DOC 10th March 2006
REPLY FROM GOsC 27th March 2006
Does the misleading information and threats reveal a hidden agenda to gain control over function?
In 2002 the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) agreed that a member of the Democratic Osteopathic Council (DOC) was entitled to advertise his use of 'osteopathic treatments' even though he wasn't registered as an osteopath. This was in keeping with the intentions of the Osteopaths Act 1993 as outlined by Malcolm Moss MP during its second reading when he stated, "The closure of professional title was one of the key recommendations in the working party report. It is also a central provision of the Bill. I emphasise, however, that the offence will be related to the use of the title "osteopath".
The Bill does not in any way seek to prohibit the use of osteopathic techniques by other manipulative therapists such as physiotherapists, or prevent them from telling their patients that they are using such techniques." (Copy Hansard enclosed Column 1174). It was also in keeping with the understanding of the law by the GOsC in 1999 when the deputy Registrar wrote, ÔThe GOsC has always referred to the protection of title not closure of function.
In our articles we have always been clear that the offence is calling oneself an osteopath "whether expressly or by implication", not practising it or some of the techniques.
Recently in 2006, in a letter to the DOC, the Registrar, Madeleine Craggs, writes, 'Éwe will attempt to prosecute practitioners offering 'osteopathic treatments'Ñthis is the domain of an osteopath.'
The DOC believes that this represents a deliberate policy by the GOsC to suggest anyone using the term 'osteopathic' or any of its derivatives is deliberately trying to pass themselves off as osteopaths. This view then justifies the GOsC seeking tighter controls of these terms in their proposed changes to the Act in their Legislative Review 2005.
It is also an attempt to frighten practitioners who are abiding by the existing law into dropping any reference to their qualifications and training.
If this is allowed to continue, the net result will be for the GOsC to take control of function as well as title, which was not the intention of the Osteopaths Act and is not in the public interest.
There is also no proven risk to the public with the existing situation to justify such amendments to the Osteopaths Act.
The DOC suggests that the GOsC might like to spend less time and money chasing imaginary threats to its influence and invest more on research into the effectiveness and safety of its practitioners. It is this, not pointless litigation, which will improve the care of patients and the standing of the profession in the long term.