Re: Certification
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:14 am
As usual, it seems NZ has a far more civilized approach. However, there may be some variations in how various countries use the words License, Registration and Certification. Again, for information purposes, I’ll add a bit from the US side.
In my experience in the US -
* Licensing by a governmental body – or quasi governmental ‘board’ is supposedly to ‘protect the public’. It comes with a regulatory board, lots of paperwork, exams and entry and yearly fees paid by the practitioner, rules and regulations, and a full set of penalties (reprimands to fines and even prison) for anyone who violates the rules and regulations. So it has a fully operational policing branch with real teeth. It legally excludes ‘non licensed’ persons from practicing or even offering services that use the regulated vocabulary of the profession – effectively establishing a professional monopoly. It also sets the practitioner in a place of ‘expertise’ and ‘trust’ and opens them up to liability (lawsuits) if they do not perform to the current ‘standard of practice’.
* Registration may be governmental, quasi governmental or completely private – and usually comes with a regulatory board (and the paperwork, exams and fees paid by the practitioner) but is usually non limiting in that non registered or non certified persons may practice, may use the vocabulary of the profession, and the regulatory board has no ‘policing’ authority within their own ranks other than to refuse to renew an individual’s registration or certification if they are blatantly defying the precepts of the board. So you have the outward appearance of an ‘authority’ in a profession (with all the paperwork, exams, and fees paid by the practitioner), but none of the professional benefits of licensing.
* Certification is usually non governmental – and an award, much like a degree, by anyone that wishes to offer it. So you have a fully accredited university offering a ‘certification’ and a mail order herb company offering a ‘certification’. You also see a variety of newly invented ‘boards’, ‘associations’, etc. offering ‘certifications’.
In the eyes of the public, the use of the terms ‘registered’ and ‘certified’ are usually taken to mean some standardized level of quality and indeed a ‘standard of practice’. At this point, I have not met a cross section of CHC homeopaths that had any obvious ‘standard’ in their practice of homeopathy. I do not mean any disrespect to CHC or any other registering or certifying body in homeopathy or other field of alternative medicine. In engineering or accounting it is obvious that you either arrive at the right answer or you don’t (ok – no jokes about ‘creative accounting’), based on the facts. 10 well trained engineers or accountants faced with the same problem or set of facts will arrive at the exact same answer. In homeopathy you work with an individual, at that moment in life, with the information available to you at that moment. 10 homeopaths will most likely treat the same individual in at least 8 different ways – if not 10. You can not do a double blind study to absolutely prove the correct prescription and dosing technique. Unless you follow that individual for years, you can never say with any certainty that they were cured or just very well palliated. But if the individual is relieved of suffering, brought to a better state of health, enjoys a higher quality of life, and has no nasty pharmaceutical side effects – isn’t that the goal of homeopathy? Now how do you ‘certify’ the ability to do that?
If certification/registration is pursued as a prelude to insurance payments and entering ‘mainstream’ medical establishments – well – then it would appear we must come up with some ‘standards of practice’. That would seem to start at the education level – not the certifying test level. If certification/registration is pursued as a prelude to licensure – then we are admitting that it is something that requires governmental regulation to ‘protect the public’. Yikes – I would hate to see homeopathy, the gentlest and most effective branch of medicine, ever fall into that consideration.
Donna
D C Rona, PhD, ND, DHM
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 8:06 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: "Certification"
In my experience in the US -
* Licensing by a governmental body – or quasi governmental ‘board’ is supposedly to ‘protect the public’. It comes with a regulatory board, lots of paperwork, exams and entry and yearly fees paid by the practitioner, rules and regulations, and a full set of penalties (reprimands to fines and even prison) for anyone who violates the rules and regulations. So it has a fully operational policing branch with real teeth. It legally excludes ‘non licensed’ persons from practicing or even offering services that use the regulated vocabulary of the profession – effectively establishing a professional monopoly. It also sets the practitioner in a place of ‘expertise’ and ‘trust’ and opens them up to liability (lawsuits) if they do not perform to the current ‘standard of practice’.
* Registration may be governmental, quasi governmental or completely private – and usually comes with a regulatory board (and the paperwork, exams and fees paid by the practitioner) but is usually non limiting in that non registered or non certified persons may practice, may use the vocabulary of the profession, and the regulatory board has no ‘policing’ authority within their own ranks other than to refuse to renew an individual’s registration or certification if they are blatantly defying the precepts of the board. So you have the outward appearance of an ‘authority’ in a profession (with all the paperwork, exams, and fees paid by the practitioner), but none of the professional benefits of licensing.
* Certification is usually non governmental – and an award, much like a degree, by anyone that wishes to offer it. So you have a fully accredited university offering a ‘certification’ and a mail order herb company offering a ‘certification’. You also see a variety of newly invented ‘boards’, ‘associations’, etc. offering ‘certifications’.
In the eyes of the public, the use of the terms ‘registered’ and ‘certified’ are usually taken to mean some standardized level of quality and indeed a ‘standard of practice’. At this point, I have not met a cross section of CHC homeopaths that had any obvious ‘standard’ in their practice of homeopathy. I do not mean any disrespect to CHC or any other registering or certifying body in homeopathy or other field of alternative medicine. In engineering or accounting it is obvious that you either arrive at the right answer or you don’t (ok – no jokes about ‘creative accounting’), based on the facts. 10 well trained engineers or accountants faced with the same problem or set of facts will arrive at the exact same answer. In homeopathy you work with an individual, at that moment in life, with the information available to you at that moment. 10 homeopaths will most likely treat the same individual in at least 8 different ways – if not 10. You can not do a double blind study to absolutely prove the correct prescription and dosing technique. Unless you follow that individual for years, you can never say with any certainty that they were cured or just very well palliated. But if the individual is relieved of suffering, brought to a better state of health, enjoys a higher quality of life, and has no nasty pharmaceutical side effects – isn’t that the goal of homeopathy? Now how do you ‘certify’ the ability to do that?
If certification/registration is pursued as a prelude to insurance payments and entering ‘mainstream’ medical establishments – well – then it would appear we must come up with some ‘standards of practice’. That would seem to start at the education level – not the certifying test level. If certification/registration is pursued as a prelude to licensure – then we are admitting that it is something that requires governmental regulation to ‘protect the public’. Yikes – I would hate to see homeopathy, the gentlest and most effective branch of medicine, ever fall into that consideration.
Donna
D C Rona, PhD, ND, DHM
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 8:06 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: "Certification"