Safety and efficacy of osteopathic medicine is not self evident. Apparently we need validated research to demonstrate what is already empirically obvious. The regulatory environment has become so paranoid that osteopaths are no longer allowed to assert (advertise) either the safety and efficacy of osteopathic medicine – there are after all no safety or efficacy studies.
the offending statement bottom right – legally i ought to pulp these
Clinical studies and proof of mechanism is not sufficient. Such studies cannot encompass the spectrum of manual approaches, practitioners and idiosyncratic patient responses. This logic applies to anything anyone does – clinical or otherwise. Manual medicine is not amenable to the logic or methodology of pharmacology.
It is sad and amusing that many global health insurers are not insuring ‘adverse treatment responses’ or medical mishap. Strange times indeed when regulators and professional boards imagine they are protecting the unsuspecting and vulnerable public from a profession with one of the lowest rates of adverse treatment outcomes. To understand the omission of the terms safety and efficacy previously used on this site you can browse this scintillating document published by Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency .
Comments are closed.