More regulation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and its practitioners is needed, according to a House of Lords report published on November 28. The report also says that well-regulated and evidence-based CAM therapies should be provided on the National Health Service.
The report from the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology divides CAM into three groups (see Panel). Of these, it says that those in group 1 have established research into their effectiveness, organised self-regulation of their practitioners and are increasingly being provided on the NHS. It says that statutory regulation of practitioners of acupuncture and herbal medicine should be introduced quickly and that such regulation may soon become appropriate for homoeopathy.
The committee took note of the submission by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, which pointed out that the public had great difficulty in distinguishing between licensed medicinal products and unlicensed herbal medicines. The report says that the Medicines Control Agency should find a way which would allow the public to identify licensed products and that it should enforce the rules against making medicinal claims for unlicensed products more strictly.
The report says that conventional health care practitioners should become familiar with CAM therapies as part of their continuing professional development. Professional and regulatory bodies should develop guidelines on competence and training in CAM therapies for health professionals who wish to provide complementary therapies as part of their practice.
Where CAM is provided on the NHS it should be through referral by a health care professional, the report says.
Complementary and alternative medicine, House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 6th report 1999-2000 [HL123], The Stationery Office, London (£15.50).
The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology divides complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies into three groups: group 1 embraces disciplines which have an individual diagnostic approach and well-developed self-regulation of practitioners; group 2 covers therapies which do not purport to embrace diagnostic skills and which are not well regulated; group 3 covers other disciplines which are either long-established but indifferent to conventional scientific principles (3a) or which lack any credible evidence base (3b). Examples are listed below.