Guest guest Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 > Attilio: I read the NHS document on the proposed protected title > along time > back. I posted a message to this group about 8-9 months ago to make > practitioners aware that 'weekend wonderers' were going to be > called western > acupuncturists, see archives. Also there was no provision for the title > 'doctor of Chinese medicine'. So I do try and keep myself aware of the TCM > politics if I can. Susie: This is exactly what I mean about not understanding what is going on. I recall seeing your post, but what you didn't say was that the link you posted was not a final document from the DoH, but a discussion paper. The BacC have responded along with various other interested parties and put forward alternative proposals. It is not a foregone conclusion that 'weekend wonderers' will be able to call themselves acupuncturists. > Attilio: Yes, I will join and contribute to the debate. In the > meantime I'll > continue to contribute via this forum. Don't get me wrong, I > support the BAC > especially there regulation policies which stipulate the English language > exam requirement as this is an area seriously flagging in the UK. I just > don't appreciate BAC members arrogance and having to undergo childish > interview inductions that are a waste of my time and money. Susie: I presume you knew that you were undertaking a course that was not accredited by the BAcC and that you wouldn't therefore automatically become a member of the BAcC, it was your choice. Other than by interview and Case Study presentation how would you assess whether a practitioner was suitable as member? I presume that either the course you did did not apply for accreditation or some part of it was not up to standard. Either way I don't think you can blame the BAcC. Also what is the arrogance you refer to amongst BAcC members? Care to give me a few examples? Regards Susie Parkinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 > Attilio: I read the NHS document on the proposed protected title > along time > back. I posted a message to this group about 8-9 months ago to make > practitioners aware that 'weekend wonderers' were going to be > called western > acupuncturists, see archives. Also there was no provision for the title > 'doctor of Chinese medicine'. So I do try and keep myself aware of the TCM > politics if I can. Susie: This is exactly what I mean about not understanding what is going on. I recall seeing your post, but what you didn't say was that the link you posted was not a final document from the DoH, but a discussion paper. The BacC have responded along with various other interested parties and put forward alternative proposals. It is not a foregone conclusion that 'weekend wonderers' will be able to call themselves acupuncturists. Attilio: If you read the message properly or care to remember it correctly, then you'll notice that it was taken from the question and answer format consultation paper presented by the DOH. With regards to a particular question of which I've already stated, I asked members to email to the person collecting the responses and reply that western doctors should not be called western acupuncturists. Its you who do not understand what I am doing. > Attilio: Yes, I will join and contribute to the debate. In the > meantime I'll > continue to contribute via this forum. Don't get me wrong, I > support the BAC > especially there regulation policies which stipulate the English language > exam requirement as this is an area seriously flagging in the UK. I just > don't appreciate BAC members arrogance and having to undergo childish > interview inductions that are a waste of my time and money. Susie: I presume you knew that you were undertaking a course that was not accredited by the BAcC and that you wouldn't therefore automatically become a member of the BAcC, it was your choice. Other than by interview and Case Study presentation how would you assess whether a practitioner was suitable as member? I presume that either the course you did did not apply for accreditation or some part of it was not up to standard. Either way I don't think you can blame the BAcC. Also what is the arrogance you refer to amongst BAcC members? Care to give me a few examples? Attilio: Again, your lack of understanding and knowledge amazes me yet again. If you looked into the Middlesex/Beijing course before you started attacking it, you will find that it covers all the BAC requirements and a hell-of-alot-more. No I didn't know that it wasn't accredited and I couldn't care less. The politics of why it still isn't accredited I do not care to discuss and I'm sure members do not wish to read. I'm not stating its the BAc's fault, but a little slack wouldn't go amiss. As to member arrogance, your a prime candidate for the position. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.