UK's NHS Complementary Therapies Directory

Just recently in the UK there has been a bit of a furore over the National Health Service ‘wasting’ public money on such rubbish as complementary therapies when these therapies have not stood up to the rigours of scientific scrutiny. I am not going to engage with this ridiculous debate frankly. Firstly it is public money that is funding the establishment of the NHS Directory and it is the public that wants access to these therapeutic methods as a part of their National Health Service provision. Secondly there are also many types of so-called ‘conventional medicine’ that are widely available that have not stood up to the rigours of this same scientific method (or having stood up to it has gone on to kill people or cause serious harm at a later date…).

What is actually very scary is something that I came across just today in a local free newspaper. I re-publish the advertisement from a local firm of solicitors here. The UK’s CAM community have barely got over the hangover from the celebrations at the fantastic opportunity to become an integral part of the nation’s health provision via the NHS CAM Directory and already we are being set up to take a big fall. Forget the ridiculous posturing of the medical establishment who are trying to desperately force an agenda of scientific validation that is not credible. This is serious.



I suggest that you open up this image and have a read. It is just marketing for a firm of solicitors but there is a dangerous presumption within this innocent little ad. It doesn’t matter that it is to do with acupuncture – replace that word with any other therapeutic method and have a read. Let’s replace it with ‘Reiki’.

The worrying part of this is in the solicitor’s response to the hypothetical client’s question, when he/she says:

“In order for you to bring a claim against either your GP (‘General Practitioner’ as doctors are known in the UK) or the acupuncturist, you will need to show not only that the treatment you received fell below a reasonable and acceptable standard, but also, that you suffered harm or injury in some way as a result of the treatment you received.”

Our friendly solicitor goes on to say:

“…the treatment did not help you, but neither did it harm you. This being the case, then you would not have a claim in law for damages against the acupuncturist.”

On the face of it that of course appears all very reasonable doesn’t it? As a member of the public you would expect to perhaps have to sue a practitioner of whatever discipline if you felt that your condition had deteriorated as a consequence of their therapeutic intervention. This however opens up a whole area of problems for those seriously engaged with energy-based disciplines such as acupuncture, Reiki, reflexology, acupressure, perhaps yoga therapy, and a whole plethora of other disciplines I am sure.

As I have told my Reiki students many times in their training, along with my own clients who have come to me for treatment, if the treatment is to be effective, there is going to be a detoxification on some level. This is not optional, it is inevitable.

This detox however, may be so mild as to be unnoticeable and the client simply improves by leaps and bounds from the start. This of course happens a lot. For many, many people however, this is simply not the case at all. For these there can be quite a dramatic detox. All sorts of emotional traumas can surface, severe pain might seem to become worse, aches that you never had before can manifest. Frankly, for some, a minority, the detox can be a nightmare.

This is just the way it is and there is no avoiding this inevitable part of the healing process if this is what the particular individual needs. They just have to go through it. There is no other way, no other route, no climbing over the wall – there is only that one door – take it or leave it. It is a problem for sure.

It can be an entirely unpleasant experience for the client to find themselves going through a traumatic or painful process of detoxification to get to the state of health. It is also a worrying time for the practitioner as we try to do our best for our client and see them through the detox process as best we can (how many of you that practice Reiki, on seeing the pain, either physical or emotional that a client is going through, have secretly done distant healings for them to help them through that process as quickly and as smoothly as possible?). If there is however a chance that some solicitor is going to come along and sue us for the fact that nature is doing what it needs to do to bring someone to the state of health that they have requested the treatment for, then we might as well give up now.

Again, this is all going to come down to science and the scientific method. Science doesn’t on the whole give our practice any credence anyway, but it will be used against us in a court of law if we are sued. The fact that science is not capable of measuring the effect of an energy therapy in any meaningful way will be discarded. The fact that universal law dictates as an absolute that sometimes, for some individuals, the detox-to-health that they will go through will not be that pleasant will also be discarded.

It will be no use pleading that it is not you that does the healing and that you are just a conduit for universal energy which is in fact being drawn in by the client themselves. The client can’t sue universal energy; they can sue you though for the consequences of their own subconscious needs and metaphysical actions. You and your practice will be measured against narrow-minded laws that are designed to defend people against the worst abuses of an abusive and invasive medical approach that often does harm to people and so needs to be reigned in from time to time.

This is a worrying time for all practitioners in the CAM field. There needs to be debate around this issue and around what sort of defence can be offered in a court of law when the basis for the effectiveness of the therapy is not recognised by the limited Western scientific method.

Make sure your public liability insurance is up to date is my only advice at this moment.