Minutus

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Hi,

I would be interested in replies to my questions about the creation of
a single register of homeopaths in the UK,
(and where it applies , elsewhere) by CORH (the council of
organisations registering homeopaths)
http://www.corh.org.uk/aboutus.html

The National Occupational Standards (NOS) for Homeopaths have been
created by CORH members and this is a feat in itself, but NOT part of
what I wish to discuss here. URL for the NOS.
http://www.corh.org.uk/publications.html

CORH is now in the final stages of creating a single register for
homeopaths in the UK

In the UK there are several organisations registering homeopaths
including:

The Society of Homeopaths
http://www.homeopathy-soh.com/Default.a ... 5A00110000
The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
http://www.a-r-h.org/
The Homeopathic Medical Association
http://www.homoeopathy.org/
CORH regulations for setting up a single register raise some questions:
-this para. in particular:
The worrying implications of this are that despite CORH being made up
of members from, and representing, the bodies that currently register
homeopaths, the registration process of those very bodies is NOT
TRUSTED by CORH. There has in their words, not been any 'meaningful
process'. This makes a mockery of current registration as here CORH
clearly censures the authenticity of all UK homeopaths' registration,
and thus the bodies that do the registering. Are the current
registering bodies to admit that their registration process is invalid?

If those bodies registering homeopaths in the UK accept these
regulations from CORH then they also accept the censure, thereby
admitting that their registration process is invalid; which begs the
question - is the current membership of these organisations and the
'registered homeopath' status worth the paper it's written on;?

Either the current status of 'Registered Homeopath' is valid or it
isn't; if not then one has to ask whether the registration bodies have
been accepting money to 'register' homeopaths under false pretenses?

The bodies currently registering homeopaths in the UK must surely
either utterly refute this censure or accept it and its implications.
Either way registration with the new body (created by CORH and to be
referred to as NRRB) must surely obviate the need for registration with
another body thereby rendering the current bodies obsolete, as what
would be the point of being registered twice?

As this may become a model for other countries I hope homeopaths
outside the UK will also comment

regards

Simon King
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nothing is written in tablets of stone yet. Fill in the long form that is
available on their website and has been sent out to all registered members,
and make all your points to them.

There is plenty of scope to be putting all concerns forward as it is a huge
document that allows for lengthy comment.

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 8/2/05 2:41 pm, Simon King at sk2004@ntlworld.com wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I did that some time ago
I too recommend others to do likewise

regards

Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Simon,

I don't read this in as derogatory a way as you seem to. If everyone
registered by *any* registering body were automatically transferred to the
new register, then where would the quality control be? If they want to set
a standard that not *every* registering body holds, then they need to either
require everyone to apply individually (I assume that's what they mean), or
else face the unpleasant prospect of picking-and- choosing among registering
organizations and stating which will be *excluded* from automatic transfer.
Yuk. To my mind, asking everyone to apply individually makes a great deal
more sense.

I assume this isn't an attempt to eliminate the other organizations, but
just establish an "umbrella" and a uniform standard?

Shannon
on 2/8/05 8:41 AM, Simon King at sk2004@ntlworld.com wrote:

I don't see it as derogatory - I just read it literally, and ask
questions about it.

Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 2:41 PM +0000 2/8/05, Simon King wrote:

[snip]

In NZ, there were three registers, each set up by a group that had
their own agenda. A few years ago, the three registers came together
and hammered out a single register. It was done with a lot of
teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling, but it was done.
It was understood that each register though that someone on the other
register was not up to standard, and that was lain aside, and
everyone was grandfathered in.
Whatever their past was is in the past-- but as a member of the
single register they have to abide by the standards. The register is
at http://www.homeopathy.co.nz

Of course after three years of hassling with this and finally getting
a single register, a small group of people did not agree and
immediately formed another register. As far as I know, it is still
around, but had not been recognized by any official bodies.
The NZ Qualifications Authority does have standards for the
assessment of homeopathic training, and one who passes those
assessment criteria gets a NZQA Diploma in Homeopathy. Having THAT
diploma will mean no further testing to get on the register because
the standard is set. Two of the three schools in NZ assess to that
standard, and the third is working on coming up to the standard.

With the merging of any registers you will have to accept those you
do not feel are up to YOUR standards, and the knife cuts both ways.

What else?

JW

???
Well, you *said*: ...
Which sure sounds like a derogatory reading to me!
But in any case, do you then think that anyone who has been registered by
*any* registering organization ought to be included on the list, or only
those registered by organizations whose standards (at least reportedly) are
equivalent to theirs, or only those with a certain level experience, or
trained by certain folks, or ?? I'm just curious how you think it *ought*
to be handled, if not by individual registration?

Shannon
I don't see it as derogatory - I just read it literally, and ask
questions about it.

Simon

on 2/8/05 1:18 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

It seems though that there's no grandfathering here, and that in a
nutshelll is the issue

SK
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Doesl "abide by the standards" mean they have to practice classical-only, or
were the issues something else?
Shannon
on 2/9/05 3:26 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

What do I think 'ought' to happen?

That wasn't really my point although I'm quite happy to say what I
think ought to happen

My point was the wording of that clause and what it implied.

What I think ought to happen is pretty much what happened as Julian
explained in NZ.

regerds
Simon
ps
It is getting harder and harder to reply due to comp probs
I have to restart several times to get these mails to show up so if I
stop replying suddenly you know why!

Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]