One can only assume that the Chiropractic Board must not have typed the guidelines slow enough as a significant number of chiropractors did not get it.
Osteopath created this "treatment" and a few Osteo's have been doing it for years, why are they not under the same spot light?
I understnd this treatment is also offered for new born's, which totally freaks me out that they would touch a new born in this way, no matter how "gentle".
There is nothing necessarily wrong with offering non-evidence based treatments ... the problem is with the claims that get made by the clinician for the treatments. Chiropractors just seems to have a lot more making the claims in adverts or on websites that contravene the regulation compared to osteopaths.
Also, when it comes to the chiropractors they much more visible in using this treatment (I followed one story in which a chiro was sneaking into a hospital and manipulating kids with parental consent, but with no knowledge of hospital staff, so nothing noted in the kids hospital records --> they then boasted about it on facebook!)
Here is one such story from Reasonable Hank: http://reasonablehank.com/2014/09/11/anti-vaccine-chiropractors-57-hands-off-the-babies/
"...Chiropractors must practise in an evidence-based way.."
What "evidence" could these practitioners present that their treatment actually worked?
l am not say the client said "great" or that research said it should work, l am talking actual evidence to support the treatment provided for that individual?
Isnt that what Dr Minter is asking? An evidence based outcome.
Press Release: AHPRA lays charges for advertising
09 Aug 2017
AHPRA has charged a New South Wales corporation with breaching the National Law1 prohibition on misleading advertising of regulated health services.
AHPRA alleges that the advertisements in question were published in newspapers in several locations around Australia.
The charges laid today covered four counts of false and misleading advertising and four counts of creating an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment.
Laws about advertising for health practitioners and healthcare providers hold advertisers accountable for the way they advertise regulated health services.
This is an important step because it sees a corporation, not an individual health practitioner, charged by AHPRA using its regulatory powers under section 133 of the National Law.
As this matter is now before the courts we are unable to comment further on this particular case, at this time.
Speaking generally, AHPRA CEO Mr Martin Fletcher said:
‘Our top priority is to ensure that consumers can make choices about their healthcare free from the influence of misleading advertising. We have taken a number of important steps this year to encourage compliance with the National Law requirements for advertising regulated health services, including launching our new Advertising compliance and enforcement strategy.
We listen to consumers when they raise concerns with us, not just about individuals but also corporate bodies. Today’s charges send a message to healthcare providers and corporate bodies providing regulated health services to the public – you too need to know, understand and meet your obligations under the National Law’, said Mr Fletcher.