Unfortunately Peter Dixon and the General Chiropractic Council are 3 years and 700 complaints too late.

November 30, 2010


http___www.gcc-uk This interesting little ditty in Peter Dixons Newsletter to the profession proposing  consensual disposal of vexatious complaints(see below). This is something I was pushing for in November 2007 when I was on council, I know for a fact Dana Greene proposed a similar system a number of times during her time as a member of council (1997-2007)  as it was her who put the idea into my head after she left the council, in fact she recommended a number of council changes  to council members not that Peter Dixon took any notice.

The fact is  Margaret Coats was not having it. This is the system the Osteopaths have in place with an almost identical Act as chiropractors. The fact is Coats insisted on having a different legal interpretation of the chiropractic act than the Osteopaths. And if Coats and Dixon really wanted to change things they would have got the  Privy Council to do it as they did when they wanted the Chiropractic Act changed to protect their income. To quote the Associations in the draft of their letter to the GCC point 44. “Within a very short space of time, this order passed through the Privy Council and the Rule amendment was complete (The General Chiropractic Council (Registration) (Amendments) Rules Order of Council 2009). What it clearly demonstrated to the profession was that when it is in its interests to do so, the GCC has the capability to change the Rules. However, at other times where the profession has sought an amendment to the Rules for the interests of the public and the profession, its requests have been turned down”.

The fact any of this was leaked to the chiropractic profession through Simon Perrys blog is completely irrelevant to the allegations being made by the Chiropractic profession against Coats, or Dixons failure to reel her in. Now we are going to have this farcical situation where people hand picked by Coats and Dixon are going to “investigate” the complaints  made by the profession against Coats and the GCC. Any complaints made against the osteopathic council are dealt with by members of other councils not involved in the GCC. Guess who choose  Martin Caple to conduct the investigation into the allegations of bullying by Maxine White? 

The correspondence between Dixon and myself while I was a member of council shows clearly who was calling the shots, and hopefully I will find the time to publish them. Its getting easier to come up with material as we revisit all the previous GCC misdemeanours with new people involved. Before Dixon becomes righteous and tries to divert attention away from the alliance Margaret Coats formed with Alan Hennes soliciting complaints against chiropractors, to leaks to a sceptic website  remember the associations points 23 and 24. 

23. “Furthermore, we have evidence that the GCC pursued a policy of inviting Alan Henness to submit complaints against non-BCA members. In correspondence dated 7 December 2009, Jane Kinane (Specialist Officer, Regulation) wrote to Henness on behalf of the Investigating Committee stating inter alia that “…from the web pages provided, we have identified that there are additional chiropractors from certain clinics, other than those who you have submitted a complaint against. We would therefore be grateful if you could consider the following chiropractors below and confirm whether you wish to submit a complaint against these chiropractors.” Fifteen further chiropractors became subject to complaints as a result of this correspondence”.

24. “We are appalled that the GCC, through its statutory committee, would act in this way. We consider such conduct amounts to incitement and, in the circumstances, is reprehensible”.

Anyway this is what Peter Dixon has put in the GCC’s latest Newsletter; its only 700 complaints too late Peter.

Three years ago, with the support of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE), the GCC made its case to the Department of Health to change the Chiropractors Act to give the GCC’s statutory Investigating Committee ‘consensual powers of disposal’. This means giving the Investigating Committee the power to conclude a case at the investigation stage, by agreeing ‘undertakings’ with the chiropractor or the chiropractor agreeing to accept a ‘warning’.
At present, the Investigating Committee can make no findings and can do no more than decide whether there’s a ‘case to answer’ and refer a case to the Professional Conduct Committee or Health Committee. Power to dispose of cases consensually at the investigation stage of the fitness to practise procedure would be proportionate and contribute significantly to the timely and cost-effective determination of cases.

Of course, consensual disposal would not be appropriate in all cases. For example, where there was a public interest in the examination of the charges at a public hearing and where, on the face of it, the alleged conduct or lack of competence might justify suspension or removal of a chiropractor’s registration to ensure patient safety.
Right-touch regulation and
legislative timetabling

On 27 October, the GCC Chair, Peter Dixon, attended the launch of CHRE’s report
Right-touch regulation at a breakfast event at the House of Lords. The discussion was chaired by Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell MP, Chair of the Health Select Committee. The document is about ‘agile’, proportionate, evidenced and risk-based regulation – it was well received.
During discussion, Peter Dixon explained that for some years the GCC has been seeking legislative change to the Chiropractors Act, to provide disposal powers for the Investigating Committee and raise the threshold for referral to the Professional Conduct Committee and Health Committee.
Proposed changes to Professional Conduct Committee Rules

The GCC is seeking to amend the statutory Rules that govern the running of the Professional Conduct Committee. We want to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of proceedings to deliver swifter outcomes to the benefit of patients, the public and chiropractors. All this will be achieved while maintaining fairness and increasing transparency.
Consensual disposal – and other legislative amendments awaited
More information

Council agreed in February 2010 to ask government to make changes to the Rules.
We have consulted the chiropractic professional organisations and patient representatives to ask if they agree to our proposals and if they don’t, to give us their reasoning.
Any amendments to the Professional Conduct Committee Rules are unlikely to come into force any earlier than Spring 2011.

Share Button

Tags: ,

80 Responses to Unfortunately Peter Dixon and the General Chiropractic Council are 3 years and 700 complaints too late.

  1. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 23, 2010 at 13:31


    Don’t you mean mctsceptic?

    Also, I think reading Paul’s posts, his concerns may be based on his perception that the MCC teaches mainly, only one technique approach to care, rather than the standard CCE/ECCE accredited undergraduate education. But I may be wrong, on both counts?  

  2. fed up on December 23, 2010 at 10:43

    I’m afraid you are wrong on all counts. McT has succeeded for one reason only. It works. Like it or not. If you wish to question the formation of the McT technique then you must also view DD and any other technique developer in the same way.
    I have a description of you.

    Kiroseptic. Seems to fit.

  3. Paul on December 22, 2010 at 20:20

    Nice of you to propose a change of tack when confronted with the truth – CHIROPRACTIC has a long history of evidence and Gonstead a lineage aligned beyond a patient deciding a chiropractor could instill the necessary requirements of a profession.

    Mct has neither an evidence base nor a linegage of education.

    McT has passsed this hurdle via a lady more concerned with her own concerns rather than the needs of a profession.

    Why the McT hadn’t the gonads to drop this divisive incision into te profession and engage in real communition and real moves toward proper education is beyond me.

    And the wider community beyond the BCA etc.

    The metaphor of slackers riding the gracy train comes to mind. WHy has this been allowed to continue by McT practitioners
    / slacktitinoners

  4. fed up on December 22, 2010 at 15:38

    “despite the mct technique had nothing of an evidence base bar your experience? ”

    What a pathetic thing to say. S o paul what evidence was it that drove you to a chiropractic career?

    Please remember the technique was developed by a chiropractor, who had once been a patient. Bit like gonstead.

  5. Richard Lanigan on December 22, 2010 at 00:59

    Hi Paul let me start by saying that I believe McTimoney college should have achieved ECCE accreditation years ago and focused on the profession rather than protecting their particular brand of chiropractic. However , if it was called the Mary Walker technique, which perhaps it should have been would that be more acceptable to the UK chiropractic profession and the direction it was headed. I am not sure.

    Mary Walker was a Palmer graduate who taught John McTimoney everything he knew about chiropractic. Mctimoney started the school because of the medical direction the AECC was going (use of stethoscopes, x-ray etc) away from the principles of traditional chiropractic. McTimoney probably started from a far more informed position than either of the Palmers. The fact Christina Cunliffe lacks chiropractic principles and is ambitious should not detract from John McTimoneys legitimate motives for starting a chiropractic course in the UK. The McTimoney technique is much more forceful than Donny Epstein’s Network, or NUCHA and other what I would call touchy feely techniques. As a profession I think we are mistaken by often defining ourselves by our technique rather than the principles we practice by. I like to hear a good audible, but if I was starting over again I would spend a lot of time studying Network.

    If Fed up can analyse a spine and correct a subluxation in my opinion thats what makes him or BJ a chiropractor . Perhaps we should be asking what makes someone a chiropractor and how the regulator should set the criteria

  6. Paul on December 21, 2010 at 23:16

    despite the mct technique had nothing of an evidence base bar your experience?

    Good job mct was allowed jump on the chiropractic bandwagon since its techhnique was made up by a past patient of chiropractic LOL

    Perhaps it is better described as therapeutic touch since it is not an adjustment nor manipulation, nor has the education to back up a practitioner basis but hey who cares Christina has managed to outplay politically all else around her – WHA HOO!!!

    WELL DONE!!!

    Or is it a bag of shite dressed up as a christmas present?

  7. fed up on December 21, 2010 at 16:20

    What I’m getting at ExMcT is that when I started my training the only thing I wanted to be was a McT chiropractor. End of. I didn’t care wether it was a diploma or PHD at the end as long as I could apply the technique. Being able to adjust somebody was far more important,to me, than any academic standards.

  8. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 19:06

    I’m not getting at anything and I have no doubt you would have been suitable. I was jusdt interested in why chiropractic?

  9. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 20, 2010 at 19:04

    Just to inform you that ECCE is now a full member of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, having had their procedures and processes reviewed by external audit. As a member of ENQA, ECCE will share best practice with other European QA agencies. This shows confidence in ECCE as a benchmark for the accreditation of undergraduate chiropractic education and training in Europe. I presume that is why the chiropractic profession uses them to set and maintain it’s standards in Europe and fiercely defends their right to do so?

  10. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 19:01

    That was the expectation.

    I’m not sure about your line of enquiry. I was deemed to be suitable for the course when I was accepted onto it and the fees transferred from my bank account.

  11. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 18:37

    x “Did you want to become a chiropractor? Did you have any previous experience of chiropractic?”

  12. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 18:36

    Why would he/she not answer a couple of simple question?

  13. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 17:20

    I have a vocational health degree and it was not delivered in the same way. That is what inspired me to do postgrad study.

    I suppose trying to get people to understand what a conventional degree is (not you Stefaan) is like asking a woman to understand what it is like to be a man, or vice versa.

    I’m checking out for now.

  14. Stefaan Vossen on December 20, 2010 at 17:07

    What do you mean by a conventional degree ExMcStudent? These, like for example medicine are what are called vocational degrees, i.e. you are looking to be able to practice what you learned, unlike say philosophy or English lit. I don’t really understand but really want to understand what your core-complaint is?

  15. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 17:00

    Did you want to become a chiropractor? Did you have any previous experience of chiropractic?

  16. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 16:57

    I thought I was doing a specialised postgrad University conventional DEGREE. I stupidly believed what was told to me at the open day by the Principal which I now consider to be ‘spin’. There was no mention of graduates being despised by their peers, as you have mentioned.

  17. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 16:44

    X why did you pick the MCC? Did you know about McT or just chiropractic?

  18. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 16:42

    Sorry xmct it was Paul who said about not answering questions. It had no funding, you paid for it. No student loans or bursaries either.

  19. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 16:42

    Any minute now, there will be a ‘brand new poster’……, a brand new happy clappy McStudent with a cut and paste PR statement :-)

  20. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 16:36

    I don’t doubt that it was a great place to study for a state funded diploma 20 years ago.

  21. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 16:29

    @Fed Up. No I did not say something about you not answering questions.

    The point is not about WHAT they learned it is about HOW it is delivered these days.

  22. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 16:24

    Just thought, I’m an exmctstudent aswell. I had a great time and have been given something that helps a lot of people and will last for my lifetime. I’d def. do it again. Any other exmctstudents upset about what they learned?

  23. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 15:44

    Did you say something earlier about ME not answering question?

  24. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 15:34

    That’s irrelevant. A degree should be a degree.

  25. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 15:06

    You are obviously wrong about the first 2. How long did you attend the MCC for? Do you just attend to get another degree or did you want to train to be a chiropractor?

  26. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 14:56

    No, no and no, because I found there to be a difference in the quality of tuition between a conventional University and a college who offer degrees validated by a remote University.

  27. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 14:27

    ex mct did you switch courses and study at AECC?

  28. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 14:23

    Would you have left with an Masters in chiropractic? Would you have received a degree? yes or no? Your opinion or experience is your own, and obviously doesn’t reflect the vast majority of students at the MCC.

  29. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 14:05

    @Fed up. Your statement is a contradiction in terms. I’m afraid that gets a yawn from me.

    I already hold a conventional degree. There are no comparable degrees to be obtained from the McTimoney College, in my experience.

  30. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 13:32

    I understand that and maybe when I studied I didn’t mind if it was a diploma, I just wanted to learn the technique. But if you had stayed the course you would have received a degree there can be no arguments about that.

  31. ExMcStudent on December 20, 2010 at 13:26

    @Fed up. Thanks for the history.

    When students study for a degree, their expectation is that they will be learning an effective technique AND be educated to University standards for their hard earned cash.

    Largely because McTimoney is a brand, one is not encouraged to think for oneself – the very essence of a studying for a University degree. One is not permitted to mention anything that may be construed as harming the brand. That’s not education – that’s commerce. They simply cannot have it both ways.

  32. fed up on December 20, 2010 at 12:37

    Ok here we go Paul, bilbo and exmct.
    I think the the reason some people are anti McT is based on the history between the bca and IPC now MCA. The IPC stood for the institue of pure chiropractic. The BCA didn’t like that. I was told by a bca member with over 25 years experience that back then McT were viewed as a cottage industry and I can understand why. The majority of people who trained as McT often did so because they had been helped by McT. Infact I think I remember numbers like 97% of McT students had been helped by McT chiropractors. The way the course was run allowed almost anybody with the right qualifications and enough money to train. When I first qualified I went to see the local BCA chiro who at that time had been working for over 20 years, he said to me that the technique was obviously good but tyhe problem was with the education standards, I understood what he meant. As things have changed so has the course, it wasn’t helped by the BCA a few years ago banning all of it’s members from teaching at the MCC or running CPD there. And remember the AECC degree at one point was validated by the open university. And your DC stood for diploma in Doctorate of chiropractic.
    I think a lot of New grads are taught McT is inferior in everyway, I have seen several feed back forms that have on them “changed my opinion of McT chiropractors” I would have to ask where they got that opinion if they had never sat down and talked to a McT.
    I have experienced hostility from a BCA member at a col of chiro meeting, why? because I was McT, but guess what , we had a conversation, he had treatment, he liked it, he even came to work at my centre for 3 years now we are freinds. Where did he get this opinion from in the first place?
    I feel that what you are taught is more important than where and how. The McT college has been kicking out very safe,very effective, call us what you will, therapists for years. Why do you think our insurance premiums are under half of a bca’s chiros?
    So if you want the best academic standards,and the quality of the degree is more important to you than anything else, go to the AECC no question, but if you want to be taught an amazing technique that works very well try McT.
    I will continue to alter the prejudice of some new grads and who knows maybe someday some chiros won’t be as blinckered as the skeptics. ie McT= not chiropractic.
    No evidence = doesn’t work

  33. Paul on December 18, 2010 at 21:06


    No response of worth to your question or my comment but hey whats new?

    As long as McT get their way who cares about a profession they should never have been part of.

    Worse still the virus has spread to Australasia – and they are happy?!

    Hopefully when Christine, Peter and Mags get their MBE’s they’ll commit hari kari before helping kill chiropractic.

    What a trio of self serving donkeys.

  34. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 18, 2010 at 15:40


    Yawn it may be but you haven’t answered my very simple question.

    We could all go yawn, but then many if us don’t!

  35. fed up on December 18, 2010 at 13:39


  36. Paul on December 17, 2010 at 21:50

    Dazed and Fed up – sorry if the numerous posts you put up were too much of a challenge time wise to overcome. I almost didn’t post – was this the strategy?

    Congratulations on the first McT course to attain ECCE candidate status.

    The fact it has taken 20 years when Barcelona took one year underlines the bullshit strategy that christina et al worked along.

    It seemed you were all happier to drop the standard of education than raise the bar at McT.

    Shame on you.

    Dazed: “there are McTs working legally in many parts of the world including NZ and OZ.”

    This is an unfortunate chain of events. McT practitioners abroad furthering the impression that meidpractic-educated and under-educated chiropractors from the UK are rubbish….

    Whilst I hold out for the standard of those within this first tranche under ECCE candidate status, I reiterate the others I and my staff encountered were well below the bar.

  37. ExMcStudent on December 17, 2010 at 20:50

    @BB On paper, yes. In practice, definitely not. There is always a point in time when people feel safe to speak out en masse.

  38. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 17, 2010 at 18:10

    @ Exmcstudent

    Surely as it stands, if the course/s is/are validated by the Uni of Wales then it makes sense that the degree the graduates receive is a ‘University’ degree by virtue of it’s validation. In the same respects, any chiropractic graduate from the MCC is recognised for registration as a chiropractor in the UK by the GCC, as they have met the GCC’s own requirements to one. So that isn’t even open to debate.

    With regards the ECCE, the profession obviously has different requirements and standards to the GCC and as such the profession doesn’t accept courses unless they meet those standards or requirements. Currently the MCC course/s haven’t.

    Of course, whether or not the sceptics are successful in challenging the validation process of the University of Wales and thus calling into question the GCC’s accredation process in the bargain, is another matter. Personally I think the sceptics think they have more power and say, than they actually have. 

    There is always a point in time when people stop listening to whingers, it’s human nature. 

  39. ExMcStudent on December 17, 2010 at 17:06

    @Dr BB You are right. The Principal is the new collaboration chief of the University of Wales ie. feet firmly tucked under Wales’ table. They made her a Professor. The feet are also tucked firmly under the GCC table. The courses are now well and truly above the validation process. They will not argue quality with one of their own. This I know.

    The issues go far deeper than wanting in content, structure or outcomes although those are poor enough. They cannot deliver in the same way that a University can and from where I’m standing, the course validators are too remote and collaborative institutions bring in too much money for them to show any motivation for withdrawing validation anytime soon.

    I commend the ECCE for having standards which they will not compromise.

    It rather looks like Wales is the only institution which will validate the McTimoney courses, on the basis that applications to English Universities must have failed for them to have travelled further afield. Students do not realise that when they go to the McTimoney College, they are not going to University to study for their expensive degrees.

  40. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 17, 2010 at 16:43

    @fed up

    I am sure it will all come out in the wash. The skeptics are pushing very hard for an investigation into the MCC course being accredited by the University of Wales. I can only presume they had to go through the same level of validation hoops as AECC and WIOC and it has of course been validated by the GCC themselves as well, having, one must presume, met their standards. So if the course in any way falls short in content, structure or outcomes, it will be the validation process that’s at fault not the MCC. This of course doesn’t resolve the ECCE issue.

    And you never answered my question?

    If you feel people are still anti McT, why do you think they feel that way? 

  41. ExMcStudent on December 17, 2010 at 15:18

    @ Fed Up I personally find the problem to be one of POOR QUALITY of every single parameter of delivering Higher Education to acceptable standards. This is extremely worrying because they advocate care and therapy of both people and animals.

    I can honestly say that I can find nothing good to say about anything they do when comparing them with a conventional University. I really would if I could. Maybe the free parking, but that really is all sadly.

  42. fed up on December 17, 2010 at 13:58

    So is it a problem with the McT course or because it’s part time or because it’s validated by the uni in wales? Which is it exactly?

  43. ExMcStudent on December 17, 2010 at 12:41

    @Fed Up. Could you expand on what you mean by ‘brain washed new grads’?

  44. ExMcStudent on December 17, 2010 at 12:36

    @fed up No I don’t feel the same about osteopathic courses – how could I when I have no experience of them or how they are taught?

  45. fed up on December 17, 2010 at 12:01

    So you feel the same about the part time osteopathic courses? They are not REAL degrees? Open university?

    “With more than 180,000 students enrolled, including more than 25,000 students studying overseas,[11] it is the largest academic institution in the United Kingdom and Europe by student number, and qualifies as one of the world’s largest universities. Since it was founded, more than 3 million students have studied its courses. It was rated top university in England and Wales for student satisfaction in the 2005[12] and 2006[13] United Kingdom government national student satisfaction survey, and second in the 2007 survey.[14]

    The Open University is also one of only two United Kingdom higher education institutions to gain accreditation in the United States of America by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education,[15] an institutional accrediting agency, recognized by the United States Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.[16]“

  46. ExMcStudent on December 17, 2010 at 11:31

    I’d better substitute the word ‘bona fide’ with ‘conventional full time’ and add a few thousand apologies for the typing error.

    My definition of conventional full time undergraduate: a student who has entered University with A levels to study full time for a taught Bachelor’s degree on University premises, not a remote collaborative institute whose course accrediting University has recently been under investigation by BBC researchers for questionable validation processes.

    Does anyone know why the McTimoney College cannot procure course validation several hundred miles closer to home?

  47. ExMcStudent on December 16, 2010 at 21:37

    @fed up. Substitute the word FULL with QUALITY. The McTimoney College is not fit to conduct University standard courses largely because they lack suitably qualified teaching staff and the college is too small to do so, no matter how many degrees they award to their own staff who previously did not have them. Most of them have no experience of a University education. The ECCE are no doubt aware of this.

    Does anyone know if Professor Cunliffe ever went to a University as a bona fide undergraduate to gain a Bachelor’s degree? Or have all those post nominals been acquired part time or by APEL?

  48. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 16, 2010 at 21:09

    @fed up

    The point re ‘the word’ is they (ECCE) don’t have to take it out. There are NO other colleges worldwide that the profession accredits that are part-time. The profession wants all accredited courses to be of a certain standard and full time. I understand it is that simple.

    But surely it’s irrelevant, in the UK the course is accepted by the GCC, it’s just not recognised by the profession at large which if you practice in the UK is not a problem.

    Anyway may I ask a simple question, if you feel people are still anti McT, why do you think they feel that way? 

    Personally, I am not sure disliking a lack of conformity, equals a dislike of all McT grads. 

    Let’s hope 2011 is a better one for us all.   

  49. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 18:27

    To be honest I don’t care much for the Chiropractic profession. I qualified 20 years ago and the same infighting crap between McT and BCA is still as bad today as it was then.
    I, unlike a lot of people, am actually trying to bridge the gap. I spend my own time with chiros from all colleges, and even recently a newly aecc qualified chiro told me several lecturers at the AECC are still very anti McT and they often pass their views onto students. It’s up to me to change their opinions.
    I’ve been trying for the last 4-5 years, I have treated 6 or 7 BCA chiros and they all come back for more. The only thing that actually makes me want to keep my chiropractor title is the fact that 3 times a year I have the opportunity to have an effect on brain washed new grads.

  50. ROD MACMILLAN on December 16, 2010 at 18:17

    Odd that it is more important how you learnt than what you know and can do safely ; how many people learnt to drive part time, by this argument all cpd is pointless.

    Odd profession this with some very strange oddballs, remember that complete oddity Greg Price? No chiropractic training at all but pretending to be in the BCA.

  51. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 17:55

    I do think UK osteos have it right. Don’t you? Have they not got it right with the Goc compared to the GCC? Do you think the WOHO has it wrong by incorperating all forms of osteopathy? Do you think whats happened in the US to osteo training should happen to the chiro courses here? Do you want to be a medical doctor? maybe you are in the wrong profession.
    I don’t agree that the GCC should have taken ECCE standards, thats my point. The problems is the ECCE will not take out a word, why are you ignoring that bit.

  52. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 16, 2010 at 17:18


    If you think osteopathy has it right, maybe you’re in the wrong profession. Try talking to our French counterparts with regards the standards of the schools of osteopathy that sprung up in France and other parts of Europe over the last few years. Outcomes and standards affect all professions, maybe that’s why the ECCE and other such groups exist.

    I do agree with you that the GCC should have taken ECCE standards but I go back to my comment re politics and history.

    Chirotician, I think I said my piece on that.

  53. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 16:53

    “While we have ECCE and GCC recognising a different minimum standard the profession is not likely to be cohesive.”
    This was the quote I was referring too.
    So should the GCC use ECCE standards? or should the ECCE use GCC standards. The ECCE is controlled by chiroticians who do not want anybody who provides sub standard part time courses to be recognised. The ONLY wording in the ECCE rules that has always prevented the Mct course from being recognised is FULL. Take out that one word, that was all that was needed.

    Chiroticians are chiropractors who are more intereseted in the politics (politician) of chiropractic(and the power it gives them) than the profession itself.You don’t beleive they exist?

    We were also darwing comparisons between the osteo and chiro training and world view of some types of training. If the WORLD osteo council can do it why can’t the ECCE?

  54. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 16, 2010 at 16:35

    @ fed up

    As I said previously I am neither advocating for or against part-time education nor am I anti any college in good standing  nor ethical style of practice but your comment with regards ‘ the problem in the UK is the ECCE’ is rather naive and presumptuous. The ECCC is representative of the chiropractic profession and it’s standards, and thus your comments are a bit ridiculous. I really thought the old chip of one school expecting the whole profession to change and accommodate rather than attempting to meet international standards had gone. Obviously not.

    With regards the name that one uses to address a member of the chiropractic profession, it is simply a chiropractor not a ‘chirotician’, which may be seen as both offensive and absurd. I do however concur that there are those who are either more traditional in their views as  well as, if the term accurately describes them, more inclined towards a  biomechanical model, but they are all chiropractors. 

    I think, as you yourself alluded to with the McT thing, it is offensive to be called anything else than a chiropractor. There are enough idiots out there without widening divisions by calling each other silly names. Just a though to make the season more jolly.

  55. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 15:36

    But remember wether you trained in the US or outer mongolia the world osteoptahic Health Orginasation recognises your qualification.

  56. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 15:34

    And I suppose it’s funny that what has happened to osteo training in the US is what some chiroticians would like chiro training to become in the UK.

    “In the 20th century, osteopathy in the United States moved closer to mainstream medicine in its philosophy and scope of practice. Although manipulation and other principles of traditional osteopathy are still taught in some form in U.S. osteopathic medical schools, they are used by a small minority of graduates in actual practice.[35] The profession adopted the name “osteopathic medicine” to reflect its distinction from osteopathy.[36] Since all former schools of “osteopathy” now refer to themselves as colleges of “osteopathic medicine”, there are currently no schools of osteopathy in the United States.[2]

    According to Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, “the training, practice, credentialing, licensure, and reimbursement of osteopathic physicians is virtually indistinguishable from those of allopathic (MD) physicians, with 4 years of osteopathic medical school followed by specialty and subspecialty training and [board] certification.”[37] DO-granting US medical schools have curricula identical for the most part to those of MD-granting schools. Upon graduation, most DOs attend the same internship and residency training programs as their MD counterparts.”

  57. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 15:28

    And I think this sums it up quite nicely. The skeptics< for some reason, can't quite grasp that we don't all work the same. Our scope of practice is different. And we are not the only ones.

    "Scope of Practice is a terminology used by state licensing boards for various professions that defines the procedures, actions, and processes that are permitted for the licensed individual. The scope of practice is limited to that which the law allows for specific education and experience, and specific demonstrated competency. Each state has laws, licensing bodies, and regulations that describe requirements for education and training, and define scope of practice.

    Health care professions with defined scope of practice laws and regulations include Dietitians, nursing, midwifery, emergency medical services(EMT), pharmacists, social workers, physicians and surgeons, physician assistants, dentists and dental hygienists, chiropractors, occupational therapists, osteopaths, physical therapists, speech and language pathology, audiologists, athletic training, radiography, nuclear medicine."

  58. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 15:25

    “Osteopathy or osteopathic medicine is an approach to healthcare that emphasizes the role of the musculoskeletal system in health and disease.

    Osteopathy was founded by Andrew Taylor Still, an American physician. Still was disillusioned with the orthodox medicines of the time. He had been an Army surgeon in the American Civil War and subsequently lost most of his children to infectious diseases. In 1892, he founded the first school of osteopathy, the American School of Osteopathy (now known as the A. T. Still University), in Kirksville, Missouri. The first osteopathic college outside the USA, the British School of Osteopathy, was founded by a Scottish medical practitioner who had been a student of Still’s, Dr. Martin Littlejohn. Osteopathy then spread to British colonies, particularly Australia and New Zealand. Today osteopathy is practised in many countries in Europe and beyond.

    In the United States an American-trained D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is legally and professionally equivalent to an M.D. in all 50 states, since their medical education and training is mostly identical. Thus a ‘medical doctor’ may be a physician who is a graduate of a medical school and has the designation of M.D., or an osteopathic medical school and has the designation of D.O..

    Outside of the United States, osteopathy has been considered a form of complementary medicine, emphasizing a holistic approach and the skilled use of a range of manual and physical treatment interventions in the prevention and treatment of disease. In practice, this most commonly relates to musculoskeletal problems such as back and neck pain. Osteopathic principles teach that treatment of the musculoskeletal system (bones, muscles and joints) aids the recuperative powers of the body.

    ‘Osteopathy’ and ‘osteopathic medicine’ are often used inter-changeably.[1] The American Osteopathic Association recommends using ‘osteopathic medicine’ to describe ‘American Osteopathy’, practiced by physicians, and use osteopathy to describe the restricted-scope form of practice in other jurisdictions.[2] Osteopathy or osteopathic medicine has an international organisation, The World Osteopathic Health Organization (WOHO),[3] which permits membership by both ‘restricted scope manual therapist’ osteopaths and American osteopathic physicians. Not all ‘Osteopaths’ are physicians. Similarly, there is also an international organisation for statutory regulators, universities/medical schools offering osteopathic education and professional osteopathic associations, the Osteopathic International Alliance (OIA).[4] It is contestable that osteopathy/osteopathic medicine are two completely distinct professions; the regulatory framework determines the scope of practice in a particular jurisdiction and that is subject to change. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, osteopaths have a ‘physicianly’ training, are regulated primary healthcare professionals and have never been subordinate to the medical opinion, diagnosing un-triaged patients and treating or referring them on as indicated. Some of these practitioners use the honorific ‘Dr’. The distinction between American osteopathic physicians and manual therapy osteopaths may be lessening, with decreased communication between different countries and concurrent evolution of scope of practice.”

    This bit is important. A pity the ECCE cant be more like them.

    “The World Osteopathic Health Organization (WOHO),[3] which permits membership by both ‘restricted scope manual therapist’ osteopaths and American osteopathic physicians.”

  59. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 15:21

    I found this.

    Hi Rachie,

    “I believe I can answer this for you. In the US, only osteopaths who are grads of American Osteopathic medical schools can call themselves Osteopaths because Osteopathy here is regulated and licensed by the government.

    However, you can work as a body worker, etc., depending on the state and its licensures. In other words, I am not current on this but in Pennsylvania years ago (it may have changed by now) there was no licensing for massage, so anyone can say they are doing massage, body work, or things like this that are not regulated.

    Other states require a license to do massage, so you would have to see what the requirements of Washington State are. Certainly you are an Osteopath, but to say you are doing “Osteopathy” in the US will most likely land you in trouble with the law somewhere when physicians get news of it.

    So best to get the information from Washington state and tell them what you intend, perhaps they can guide you further…..good luck to you.”

    So it’s not just mct chiros who are restricted at working in the USA but every regulated and registered UK osteopath.

  60. dazed on December 16, 2010 at 15:04

    Richard, there are McTs working legally in many parts of the world including NZ and OZ. Yes, there are some juristrictions where the lack of ECCE accreditation means McTs cannot join a state register. The delay acheiving ECCE candiate status can be fully and firmly laid at the door of the GCC and the internal politics that tried to close the MCC down in 1998-2005.

    The next Chair of the GCC will be a lay person so my money is on Judith Worthington. The lay person thing was part of the move from elections to appointments.

  61. Richard Lanigan on December 16, 2010 at 14:44

    I have never felt how one does the course was an issue provided they come up to the standard required. I have registered Osteopaths working for me and the method of education was never mentioned by any of the Osteopaths I interviewed.

    The problem is the GCC is not bothered about chiropractic outside the UK and McTims have no practitioners outside of the UK and Ireland, I interviewed an Israeli student a few years ago who had done the McTimoney course and then had to do the course again at AECC because she could not practice in Israel and had never been warned that this could be a problem.

    Presumably this new course will get ECCE accreditation, which begs the question why has it taken so long when I was told this would happen by 2000 (five years after the Chiropractic act). I dont think this is bitching, the fact is there was a lack of transparency in the process which has resulted in a lack of trust which has and will be exploited by the regulator.
    I wonder if ECCE accreditation for this masters course will help Christina Cunliffe achieve her ambition of becoming Peter Dixons replacement. This must be the difficulty for the other association, she is the obvious choice to replace Dixon, but could she be trusted?

  62. fed up on December 16, 2010 at 12:57

    I have tried to reply several times but my posts don’t seem to get through.
    The point I was trying to make is that you can train part time at 4 schools to become an osteopath. Nobody in the osteo profession has a problem with that. Their associations don’t seem to have a problem with that. Does the osteopathic community world wide look down on UK GOC registered osteopaths and their part time courses? I don’t know.
    The problem in the UK is with the ECCE. The level attained by the qualification should be looked at not how it is attained. All the ECCE has to do is remove the wording Full time to remedy this situation. But as we all know it’s not the ECCE rules that are the problem but the certain chiroticians (as I will now call them)that are behind the ECCE.
    I am, after all as you must all know a McT.

  63. dazed on December 16, 2010 at 10:57

    Fact: McT College has a full time undergraduate Masters which opened over a year ago. Plus an access course for those without the right A levels.

    This course has candidate status with the ECCE which will be reviewed when the first cohort of students graduate in 18 months time.

    Will this put an end to the repetitive bitching about the ‘McT problem’? I’m not holding my breath.

  64. Richard Lanigan on December 16, 2010 at 10:46

    Perhaps equal is the wrong word, but the two groups are very different. The question that should have been asked in 1995 was do McTimoney Practitioners want to be part of the international chiropractic community. The fact is many McTims did not want this and as their USP was the part time course, the McTims were never going to change as the BCA had promised its members.

    I pointed this out to Peter Dixon, who was president of the BCA, Tony Metcalfe who was president of the ECU and Alan Breene who was the BCA representative on the AECC executive (I was President of the Student Union). They believed that the £1,000 registration fee would take care of McTimoney members, in Alan Breene’s case it was more “the public would never go to a McTimoney Chiropractor given a choice”.

    That was their plan, they had nothing in writing from the McTimoney leadership, no commitment for a full time course, nothing but a belief that McTimoney chiropractic would disappear because BCA chiropractors had deeper pockets.

  65. Garland Glenn on December 16, 2010 at 00:41

    I recall writting a very pointed letter to the BCA in 1999 (I was a memeber then)in which I warned that this was going to be a marrige made in hell. While I mean this not in disrespect to McTimmony practitioners, but, you can not make things which are not equal, equal.

  66. Richard Lanigan on December 15, 2010 at 18:53

    This all goes back to the Kings Fund steering group for chiropractic regulation, failing to deal with the elephant in the room and from my side of the profession the BCA telling the profession and students it was all sorted, when it was not.

    It always come back to the same thing, lack of leadership which was obvious then and is still the problem today, Dixon and Coats will fall apart the day someone with the support of the profession stands up to them.

  67. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 15, 2010 at 18:27

    Firstly I am not advocating, for or against a part-time course. But I do know that it is still an issue in certain quarters and that is why the part-time course at the MCC does not and possibly will not have international accreditation/recognition by the profession unless of course the whole profession changes tack to accommodate the MCC and the part-time course.
    As the GCC regulates only in the borders of the UK, it has no influence over the international profession and if the comments made by some are accurate, it is seen as being seriously out of step on the educational standard issue. But maybe that is being reviewed and all is becoming rosy in the garden? 

    Anyway just two points to throw onto the table;

    Doesn’t the AECC and WIOC have a foundation year, which in some cases would make it five and five? 

    Didn’t medicine attempt to have a part-time course but because of the clinical nature of the degree, they found it difficult to achieve the same outcomes when comparisons were made.

    I think as I alluded to before, there are a great many in the chiropractic profession would agree with Garland.  Whereby, if there is an international standard/ requirement set by a profession for a profession then it seems strange that the situation is different in the UK. The answer to that may, if the information I have is accurate, lie in the politics and history of regulation rather than academic standards/base line of the institutions involved when it was initiated.  

    This is simply voiced as part of a debate initiated by a statement made by fed up, but interesting in the light of everything that is currently going on never the less. One small hope, maybe Santa will bring total unity in the new year without agenda, personal or otherwise, ego or politics but simply for what may be whst is in the best interest for the whole profession rather than a segment if it. Well ever the optimist thats me

  68. Barney on December 15, 2010 at 15:05

    “I am certain that many would agree that outcomes are important. The question some may have is if whether you can attain the same levels of education and outcomes from a part-time course to that of a full time course of the same duration. I suppose the proof is always in the pudding.”

    Of course education and outcomes are unlikely to be the same with part-time and full-time courses of the same duration.

    However, they are notthe same duration: with both the osteopathic and chiropractic courses they run four years full time and five years part-time.

  69. Garland Glenn on December 15, 2010 at 14:25

    Does it not make sense that the standard should be the same world wide? After all isn’t it problematic if you can practice in one juridiction but don’t qualify in another?

  70. Richard Lanigan on December 15, 2010 at 01:40

    I would not disagree with that. Hence the need for a regulator that is apolitical, evenhanded and registrants can trust their decisions.

  71. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 15, 2010 at 00:28

    I am certain that many would agree that outcomes are important. The question some may have is if whether you can attain the same levels of education and outcomes from a part-time course to that of a full time course of the same duration. I suppose the proof is always in the pudding.

  72. Richard Lanigan on December 14, 2010 at 22:28

    On the other hand having a part time course should not have been the obstacle it has been. Peter Dixon did a full time course and it has not helped him in his decision making.

    If students come up to the required standard they should be recognised, the standard should be set by the ECCE rather than the regulator who should ensure the colleges conform to the required standard. Thats what we were promised in 1995

  73. Dr Bilbo Baggins on December 14, 2010 at 21:25


    I am certain that there are many, many chiropractors that would disagree that the lack of part-time courses is a stumbling block for the profession.

  74. fed up on December 14, 2010 at 12:34

    “While we have ECCE and GCC recognising”

    The difference is the ECCE don’t recognise a part time course, but you can train part time to be an osteopath at 4 different schools.

    That is the real stumbling block for the chiro profession.

  75. Eugene Pearce on December 13, 2010 at 19:24

    I think the non-cohesive osteopaths became osteomyologists, so the division was registered and unregistered, so all is rosey in the osteopathy camp. We have quite different interpretations of what a chiropractor is, or should be, but both “camps” are registered. Either we chose to get along and accept and respect the differences or we split on traditional – modern lines which would be a shame.

    We should be neither resisting medicalisation, or promoting an alternative agenda, we are all chiropractors. It is unfair if one group becomes regulated out of existance, equally it is unreasonable for the other to be denied looking at medically orientated diagnostic tools and techniques.

    Still roll on the HPC, and world peace.

  76. Richard Lanigan on December 13, 2010 at 17:17

    When we were being trained to be council members, the solicitor explaining the way the Act was worded and should be interpreted by council members said it was just bad luck that the person we had wrote the Chiropractic act in that way and the Osteopaths was written slightly differently by someone else. However we knew that by 2007 and could have used the Ostepaths legal interpretation. Coats did not want it.

  77. Eugene Pearce on December 13, 2010 at 14:34

    Were the osteopaths more rigorous about the minimum standard they were going to accept at the outset? Perhaps that is why they are a more cohesive bunch. While we have ECCE and GCC recognising a different minimum standard the profession is not likely to be cohesive.

  78. rod macmillan on December 1, 2010 at 20:21

    Ah well time will tell; eventually the constant pressure will result in a question in parliament.

  79. Barney on November 30, 2010 at 19:36

    Well put Richard. It has never ceased to perplex me that the virtually identical Osteopaths and Chiropractors Acts could be intrepreted so very, very differently.

    Then, again, the osteopaths are, with very few exceptions, generally cohesive and have resolved their previous differences.

    They ARE nicer people: you only have to visit their offices – the atmosphere there is warm and friendly compared with the GCC headquarters which have as much warmth as a morgue.

  80. Garland Glenn on November 30, 2010 at 13:46

    Love the red eyes.


Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: