Thread by @UKHomeopathyReg

OK people. There seems to be a bit of a stink about naturopathy in Alberta. The decision of the provinicial govt to recognise naturopathy as a professional can possibly be challenged by Judicial Review if someone of sufficient standing can get the money together. @CaulfieldTim

Recognition was granted under powers granted by the Health Profession Act 2000 qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts… Section 25 Applying to be a regulated profession. It gives powers to the relevant Minister to consider applications. Applications investigated by Advisory board.

Minister must be convinvced application in public interest. Advisory board meant to "evaluate the risk to the physical and psychological health and safety of the public from incompetent, unethical or impaired practice of the profession".

A number of other things but clearly, this is key. Advisory board makes recommendation to Minister. Wide scope in terms of what can be included etc. Minister gives approval but can impose conditions.

Judicial review therefore is possible on the grounds that risk evaluation was not properly conducted. The evidence being the risky activities of naturopaths in general. However, there may be a time limitation on when JR can be raised regarding decision of minister.

But the impacts of the decision are ongoing. And evidence of the problems is accumulating. Court could effectively rule application to resubmitted. That would be preferred outcome. At this point, public could submit comments to the Advisory board.

Allberta Rules of Court specify that application for Judicial Review should be made with 6 months of the decision. It appears that decision was made in 2012. However, exceptions can be made. There are deficiencies in the Health Profession Act.

There seems to be no mechanism for de-recognition of a profession. Colleges must provide an annual report to the Minister but that's about the accountability there is. Oh, the minister can remove certain college council members.

If a college decides to not regulate members, there's nothing that can be done. Compare this to the UK situation. Accredited registers must submit their application for reaccreditation each year to the Professional Standards Agency.

There does not seem to be a mechanism by which the scope of practice of colleges can be varied. This effectively would forbid new particularly novel forms of treatment. Nor does it allow for the removal of particular forms of treatment eg if evidence showed unsafe.

The inclusion of chelation in naturopathic scope of practice is of particular concern. If the Court will not enertain application for JR, then campaigning for an amendment to the Health Professions Act would be the obvious next step.

There would be nothing particularly contentious about an amendment that introduced process of reviewing college performance etc. True, it would create an administrative burden but it would enhance public safety. Difficult to argue against.

Also, as the Health Professions Act points out qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts… under Public Health Threat that - " if any of the following persons
knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a nuisance or a
threat that is or may be injurious or dangerous to the public health,

"that person must immediately notify the medical officer of health of
the appropriate regional health authority by the fastest means
possible:" then lists types of persons. Essentially healthcare professionals, regulatory professionals. So a Doctor could...

Advertising regulation is another area to consider. The CNDA have a section on it in their Code of Ethics cnda.net/sites/default/… but because of deficiencies in Health Professions Act, CNDA have no incentive to ensure that members comply.