<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: health professions council</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'health professions council'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22health+professions+council%22&t=%22health+professions+council%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:55:54 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Government lends credibility to quacks and charlatans</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4489687&amp;cid=t_233658_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D4117</link>
            <description>Jump to follow-up
The long-awaited government decision concerning statutory regulation of herbalists, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and acupuncture came out today.
Get the Department of Health (DH) report [pdf]
It is not good news. They have opted for statutory regulation by the Health Professions Council (HPC). This is much what was recommended by the disgraceful Pittilo report, about which I wrote a&amp;nbsp;commentary in the Times, and here,&amp;nbsp;A very bad report: gamma minus for the vice-chancellor, and&amp;nbsp;here. 
The DH report is merely an analysis of responses to the consultation, but the MHRA says
&amp;quot;The Health Professions Council (HPC) has now been asked to establish a  statutory register for practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal  medicines. The proposal is, following cre...</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4489687</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:04:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4489687</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CBTish talking CBTwaddle on psychotherapy regulation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3742308&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FpGT6eB9yg14%2F</link>
            <description>A while back I added the CBTish blog &amp;#8211; a blog written by a cognitive-behaviour therapist &amp;#8211; to my bookmarks for possible inclusion into our TWIM roundups. I haven&amp;#8217;t included it because I&amp;#8217;ve found myself too irritated by the blog&amp;#8217;s general air of smugness, self-satisfaction and intellectual grandstanding. The author certainly didn&amp;#8217;t endear himself to me by declaring that, &amp;#8220;In general, any personality disorder disables you in a very serious way that makes it impossible for you to be a blogger.&amp;#8221; That should come as a surprise to Writing in the Margins of My Mind, Confessions of a Serial Insomniac, Bippidee and many others.
This week CBTish has weighed in on the debate over psychotherapy regulation, which we&amp;#8217;ve featured heavily on Mental Nur...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3742308</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:36:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3742308</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy: HPC calls UKCP critique “gobbledegook”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3729943&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FsPMyan6swKk%2F</link>
            <description>Back in May we reported on a very bizarre document from the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). The UKCP, whose chair Professor Andrew Samuels is vehemently opposed to plans for psychotherapy to become regulated by the Health Professions Council (HPC), produced a critique of the HPC&amp;#8217;s system of fitness to practice. 
It contained all kinds of weird semantic non-arguments, and suggested that asking psychotherapists to undergo criminal record checks would be racist. It also objected to the idea that somebody falsely accused of abuse due to therapist-induced False Memory Syndrome should be able to complain against the therapist.
The HPC&amp;#8217;s response to the UKCP&amp;#8217;s critique has now been leaked to Mental Nurse. (PDF file) In a letter to the UKCP&amp;#8217;s Andrew Samuels, the HPC ch...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3729943</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:24:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3729943</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy: Therapist struck off by BACP, remains registered with UKCP</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3710631&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FVy2PSrTWgMM%2F</link>
            <description>One of the reasons psychotherapy needs to come under the auspices of the Health Professions Council is due to the lack of a single, statutory register. At present a therapist can be registered with the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), or indeed, no professional body at all.
Shockingly, we have learned that a therapist struck off by the BACP was able to stay registered with the UKCP, despite having committed a serious breach of confidentiality.

Sandra Black was struck off by the BACP in July 2009 (scroll down to find the relevant case). She had written a story about one of her clients which appeared in a psychotherapy book. Although she changed the name of the client, the details of the case were such that an...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3710631</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:35:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3710631</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy: More leaks from the UKCP</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3545500&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FckQr6n6nwOk%2F</link>
            <description>Since the leaking to Mental Nurse of the UKCP document The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy’s Critique of HPC’s Fitness To Practise System, we&amp;#8217;ve just received another leak. This time it&amp;#8217;s an e-mail from Professor Andrew Samuels (chair of the UKCP, and coordinator of the leaked document) to his UKCP colleagues.
As I&amp;#8217;ve said before, the leaked critique of Fitness to Practise is a bizarre document, strongly hinting that it&amp;#8217;s racist to do criminal record checks and that people who&amp;#8217;ve had their lives ruined by false memory syndrome shouldn&amp;#8217;t be allowed to complain about it.
The full text of the e-mail is below, but here are the highights:
- Professor Samuels admits not showing the document to the UKCP board of trustees prior to submitting it to t...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3545500</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 15:18:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3545500</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An Open letter to the UKCP</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3283652&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2Ftj516P8NYLE%2F</link>
            <description>A couple of weeks ago we broke the news that Professor Andrew Samuels, chair of the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), had been caught outright lying about his role in the Derek Gale abuse case.
Howard Martin, the original complainant in the case that resulted in Derek Gale being struck off by the Health Professions Council, has now written an open letter to David Pink, the chief executive of the UKCP. We are publishing it here on Mr Martin&amp;#8217;s behalf:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
16th February 2010
Dear David Pink and the Board of Trustees,
This is an open letter to you with regards to Andrew Samuels, his role in the HPC v Gale hearings and his subsequent public statements concerning this matter that have led to media accusations that he is a liar.
You are no do...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3283652</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:55:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3283652</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Professor Andrew Samuels caught lying about his role in abuse case</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3227862&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FieAyWNT2X18%2F</link>
            <description>A surprising number of those campaigning against psychotherapy becoming regulated by the Health Professions Council also seem to have some sort of link with Derek Gale, the arts therapist and cult guru who was struck off by the HPC for physically, sexually and emotionally abusing his clients. People like Andrew Samuels, Professor of Analytical Psychology at Essex University and chair of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. The transcripts of the Derek Gale hearings describe a letter from Samuels (PDF file, pages 36 and 37) offering to supervise Gale if he was allowed to continue practising. Some might consider this a conflict of interest in Samuels&amp;#8217; lobbying to try to prevent psychotherapists from having to join their arts therapist colleagues on the HPC register.
Since then...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3227862</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:06:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3227862</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy: Something Rotten in the State of Denmark (2)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3092764&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FX_iTUY7WpoM%2F</link>
            <description>This entry is part 15 of 15 in the series Regulation of PsychotherapyLast week I highlighted the role of Andrew Samuels, Professor of Analytical Psychology at Essex University, in the Derek Gale abuse case.
Samuels is currently claiming (see comments thread) that it&amp;#8217;s an &amp;#8220;urban myth&amp;#8221; that he offered to be his Gale&amp;#8217;s supervisor if Gale&amp;#8217;s suspension from the Health Professions Council was lifted. If it&amp;#8217;s an urban myth, it&amp;#8217;s one that has spread to the transcripts of the HPC hearing. (PDF file: see pages 36, 37 and 47)
It turns out Professor Samuels wasn&amp;#8217;t the only prominent psychotherapist to leap to Gale&amp;#8217;s support when he was up before the HPC for running a deeply abusive therapy cult. Time now to meet Brian Thorne, Emeritus Professor of ...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3092764</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:41:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3092764</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy: Something rotten in the state of Denmark?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3075597&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2F138ugUcWHE8%2F</link>
            <description>This entry is part 14 of 14 in the series Regulation of PsychotherapyMeet Andrew Samuels, Jungian psychotherapist and Professor of Analytical Psychology at the University of Essex. He&amp;#8217;s a leading spokesperson for the campaign against HPC regulation of psychotherapy. A month ago he was elected chair of the UK Council for Psychotherapy, the main umbrella body for psychotherapy organisations in Britain.
So, how will the UKCP&amp;#8217;s new chair engage with the Health Professions Council on the tricky issue of regulating psychotherapy? The answer, it would seem, is by posting ranty, paranoid video messages attacking the chief executive of the HPC.
In the video Samuels accuses the HPC of planning to prosecute him after &amp;#8220;psychotherapist&amp;#8221; becomes a protected title, though this app...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3075597</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:22:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3075597</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy: Maresfield Report (2)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2977363&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FhZaMGtt1z7g%2F</link>
            <description>This entry is part 13 of 13 in the series Regulation of PsychotherapyYesterday I posted about the Maresfield Report, which offers a &amp;#8220;devastating critique&amp;#8221; (well, according to their press release) of the case for regulation of the psychotherapy profession by the Health Professions Council. Among other things they offer the stunning revelation that psychotherapists shouldn&amp;#8217;t be regulated because, er, they aren&amp;#8217;t required to abide by child protection or Protection of Vulnerable Adults legislation.
This really is quite an unbelievable claim on their part. If I stated in work that confidentiality could override child protection/POVA concerns, then I&amp;#8217;d be hauled into supervision to have some very fundamental questions asked about whether I&amp;#8217;m safe to practice. ...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2977363</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:17:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2977363</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An excellent submission to the consultation on statutory regulation of alternative medicine (Pittilo report)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2890648&amp;cid=t_233658_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D2329</link>
            <description>Two weeks left to stop the Department of Health making a fool of itself. Email your response to tne Pittilo consultation to this email address HRDListening@dh.gsi.gov.uk
I&amp;#8217;ve had permission to post a submission that has been sent to the Pittilo consultation. The whole document can be downloaded here. I have removed the name of the author. It is written by the person who has made some excellent contributions to this blog under the pseudonym &amp;quot;Allo V Psycho&amp;quot;.
The document is a model of clarity, and it ends with constructive suggestions for forms of regulation that will, unlike the Pittilo proposals, really protect patients
Here is the summary. The full document explains each point in detail.





Executive Summary 
Statutory regulation lends prestige, but needs to be balanced ...</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2890648</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:37:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2890648</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>One month to stop the Department of Health endorsing quacks: the Pittilo questionnaire</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2857412&amp;cid=t_233658_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D2310</link>
            <description>More boring politics, but it matters.  The two main recommendations of this Pittilo report are that

 Practitioners of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine should be subject to statutory regulation by the Health Professions Council
Entry to the register should normally be through a Bachelor degree with Honours

For the background on this appalling report, see earlier posts.
A very bad report: gamma minus for the vice-chancellor
The Times (blame subeditor for the horrid title), and some follow up on the Times piece
The Health Professions Council breaks its own rules: the result is nonsense
Chinese medicine -acupuncture gobbledygook revealed
Consultation opens on the Pittilo report: help stop the Department of Health making a fool of itself 
Why degrees in Chinese med...</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2857412</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:23:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2857412</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy – Another Arts Therapist struck off</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2800489&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2Frhq51S782lM%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;ve previously highlighted the unregulated nature of counselling and psychotherapy in the UK. Arts therapists and clinical psychologists are now regulated by the Health Professions Council, so that any rogue practitioners can be struck off. The same does not apply to psychotherapists or counsellors. The risk this presents was demonstrated by the Derek Gale case. Struck off as an arts therapist by the HPC for abusing his clients, he simply retitled himself as a psychotherapist and carried on practicing.
Because of cases like Derek Gale, I fully support the ongoing moves for counsellors and psychotherapists to be regulated by the HPC alongside their arts therapist and psychologist colleagues.
Yesterday, a second arts therapist, Andrew Davies, was struck off by the HPC. The reasons are...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2800489</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:00:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2800489</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy – Response to Zarathustra</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2800490&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FAc5xEsnD3IQ%2F</link>
            <description>(Guest post by Arthur Musgrave)
My apologies for the delay in posting this, the second part of my response to your comment – Arthur
Your point about a solution to the current debate as to who should have prior claim to the titles ‘counsellor’ and ‘psychotherapist’ demands careful consideration.
I agree with you that the business of psychotherapy/counselling is done with people who are suffering and in psychological distress. I also agree with you that personal coaching is generally seen as a self‑improvement thing. In other words these two activities are distinct. But the HPC doesn’t regulate activities – it regulates titles. So, as far as the principles underpinning this form of regulation are concerned, provided people don’t either use a protected title or imply they’...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2800490</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:15:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2800490</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy – A Psychotherapist Responds (2)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2681976&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2F-tXXULvZMjA%2F</link>
            <description>This entry is part 9 of 9 in the series Regulation of Psychotherapy[This blog previously hosted a two-part article by Howard Martin, the original complainant in the Derek Gale case. Martin heavily criticised the current professional bodies for psychotherapy, and argued that this demonstrates the need for psychotherapists to be statutorily regulated to prevent abuse. Richard House, a practising psychotherapist, responds here to Martin. Z]
This is a full critical response to Howard Martin’s recent ‘Mental Nurse’ post from someone in the Independent Practitioners Network and the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy who is implacably against the HPC regulation of the psy therapies.
 
It would be very easy to respond with equally vituperative vitriol to Howard’s quasi-rant of a p...</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2681976</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:30:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2681976</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Regulation of Psychotherapy – A Psychotherapist Responds (1)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2681977&amp;cid=t_233658_111_f&amp;fid=34834&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FMentalNurse%2F%7E3%2FqZbo05rjFMc%2F</link>
            <description>In conclusion, in view of the foregoing arguments, the case for an independent commission to investigate thoroughly the various regulatory possibilities is, in my view, absolutely unanswerable. (Source: Mental Nurse)</description>
            <author>Mental Nurse</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2681977</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:07:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2681977</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>University of Central Lancashire stops its alternative medicine degrees (or does it?). Yes, it does!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2613856&amp;cid=t_233658_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D1899</link>
            <description>Jump to follow-up




.The University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) is the first place I asked to see teaching materials that were used on its homeopathy &amp;#8220;BSc&amp;#8221; course. The request was refused, and subsequent internal appeals were refused too, Clearly UCLAN had something to hide. 



 	



An appeal to the information commissioner took almost two years to be judged, but the case was won. The eventual decision by the Information
 Commissioner rejected all the grounds that UClan had used to evade the Freedom of Information Act. 
UClan appealed against the judgement and I still haven&amp;#8217;t got the stuff but that hardly matters now, because the course in question shut its doors. In any case, plenty of stuff from similar courses has leaked out already.
Meanwhile, in September 2008,...</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2613856</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:21:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2613856</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>University of Central Lancashire stops its alternative medicine degrees (or does it?)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2610924&amp;cid=t_233658_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D1899</link>
            <description>.The University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) is the first place I asked to see teaching materials that were used on its homeopathy &amp;#8220;BSc&amp;#8221; course. The request was refused, and subsequent internal appeals were refused too, Clearly UCLAN had something to hide. 



 	



An appeal to the information commissioner took almost two years to be judged, but the case was won. The eventual decision by the Information
 Commissioner rejected all the grounds that UClan had used to evade the Freedom of Information Act. 
UClan appealed against the judgement and I still haven&amp;#8217;t got the stuff but that hardly matters now, because the course in question shut its doors. In any case, plenty of stuff from similar courses has leaked out already.
Meanwhile, in September 2008, UCLAN announced an in...</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2610924</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:21:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2610924</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Professions Council ignores its own rules: the result is nonsense</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2414826&amp;cid=t_233658_97_f&amp;fid=36415&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D1284</link>
            <description>The Health Professions Council (HPC) is yet another regulatory quango.



The HPC&amp;#8217;s strapline is
&amp;#8220;Working with health professionals to protect the public&amp;#8221;





At present the HPC regulates; Arts therapists, biomedical scientists, chiropodists/podiatrists, clinical scientists, dietitians, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, paramedics, physiotherapists, prosthetists/orthotists, radiographers and speech &amp; language therapists.
These are thirteen very respectable jobs. With the possible exception of art therapists, nobody would doubt for a moment that they are scientific jobs, based on evidence. Dietitians, for example, are the real experts on nutrition (in contrast to &amp;#8220;nutritional therapists&amp;#8221; and the like, who are part of...</description>
            <author>DC's Improbable Science</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2414826</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:18:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2414826</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

